Over the last couple of days, commenters here have made the claim that there are multiple versions of Barack Obama’s Certification of Live Birth (COLB), one without the embossed state seal of Hawaii and one with. It’s an old claim, and one that makes no sense particularly now after the Governor of the State of Hawaii herself has said Barack Obama was born there and that the state has the documentation on file. Why would Obama’s campaign forge a birth certificate when they could get a real one, and how did two Hawaii newspapers get a birth announcement from the Hawaii Vital Statistics Department back in 1961 if the state hadn’t registered a birth?
Conspiracy theorists are never swayed by the implausibility of their theories, so last month I showed you a scanned image of my own birth certificate, which has an embossed seal that doesn’t show up when scanned. This is because the lighting from a scanner is dead on and creates no visible shadow. The seal is just dents in the paper that only show when shadows change the brightness of the reflection.
I have always claimed the I could see the state seal on Obama’s birth certificate, albeit faint. However, others claim not. Therefore, I decided to perform another experiment, this time with the Obama COLB itself.
I opened the Obama birth certificate from the Daily KOS (this was the first one to be published) using a photo processing program, PhotoImpact Pro version 13 from Nova Development. Then I applied the “Water Color” operator to the image twice, selecting the default setting (stroke size small, moisture level 80) each time. The result clearly shows the seal.
Click to enlarge
Any one can replicate what I did; you don’t have to take my word for it.
The COLB are still invalid – No Certificate #.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TtmSxE8cO4
Hawaii elections clerk: Obama not born here: Fukino lied?
To use a favorite line…..If Obama has a Birth Certificate WE WOULD HAVE SEEN BY NOW.
Dr. Pollard demonstrated a “how to” video for creating a HI COLB and posted it on YouTube. And if Dr. Fukino would take a look at it, I’m sure she would pronounce it to be a geniune Hawai’i birth record.
But the seal is not self-evident. Doc, I hope when opened the COLB in your photo program, I hope you took all the documentation steps because the COLB is now invalid because you have altered it. Remember, all alterations invalidate the COLB; unless of course extensive documentation is kept to state exactlly how and why the COLB is being altered.
Doc
Someone from Politijab did the same experiment months ago. They took the image and made a negative view in Photoshop and the seal clearly popped out. Of course, for those worried about the seal and the certificate number there is always this photo from Factcheck:
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
Let’s see Ron Polland fake that one? You know, the internet dating expert with no experience in imaging or document authentication?
umm…scanning a document and manipulating doesn’t change the paper document….
Dr> Pollard? You’re kidding right?
James,
S p e a k i n g s l o w l y to allow information to percolate.
A “Scan” is to take an image of something, much like a photograph or daguerreotype.
This is an image and not the thing itself, “the map is not the territory”
Taking an image in this way does not make the copy equivalent in law
Altering the image does not alter the original
Imaging a thing does not make the original invalid
Altering the image does not alter the original (repeated for emphasis)
By your viewpoint if I took a photograph of your drivers licence and then destroyed or scribbled “MUPPET” on it I would automatically stop you from driving legally.
Do we we understand now…?
Do we we understand now…?
No, it’s obvious from all his posts that he understands Nothing! He is quite happy in his delusions.
James- Let’s do gedanken experiment (a German term meaning a thought experiment, one done when the actual experiment is impossible). Suppose Obama had never shown a COLB (in retrospect, this is probably what he should have done, since showing the COLB didn’t satisfy those who wish not to be satisfied and probably changed zero votes). That would put him in the same spot as all of the previous 42 Presidents. He would still be in the White House.
Funny man!
The reason why Obama’s BC stamp and seal is not visible is because they are on the BACK of his BC.
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_1.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_9.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg
http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg
“Funny man!”
No, James is actually pathetic, he is consumed by his delusions, that’s not funny, that’s sad!
James: you have some valid points. I have found someone who agrees with you.
Blogger manipulates birth certificate image, undermining Obama claims.
Jay McKinnon, a self-described Department of Homeland Security-trained document specialist, has implicated himself in the production of palpably fake Hawaii birth certificate images similar to the one endorsed as genuine by the Barack Obama campaign, and appearing on the same Daily Kos blog entry where the supposedly authentic document appears.
http://israelinsider.com/Articles1/Politics/12956.htm
As Obama stonewalls on uncertified birth certificate, official doubts mount
A senior official in the State of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Director of Communications Janice Okubo, confirms that the image published and circulated by the Obama campaign as his “birth certificate” lacks the necessary embossed seal and signature. Backing away from a quote attributed to her that the image on the campaign site was “valid,” she told the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times in an article published yesterday: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”
Barack Obama has claimed in writing to have a valid printed document: In the first chapter of his book Dreams From My Father, describing his origins, he wrote about finding a local Hawaiian newspaper article about his Kenyan father: “I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school.”
So where is that birth certificate? It got lost? The dog ate it? No matter. Barack Obama or an immediate family member can plunk down $10 ($11.50 if he orders online) and have Hawaii mail a certified document to him within a week or two. But more than two weeks have passed since the Obama campaign adopted the suspect, uncertified image of a purported birth document published by a left-wing blog Daily Kos, and nothing certified and nothing on paper has since has been forthcoming. Nor has there been any official comment about the issue from the campaign. They may cling to the hope — however audacious — that the one issue that could disqualify their man constitutionally from gaining the presidency will just go away.
http://israelinsider.com/Articles1/Politics/12944.htm
ORYR
Thanks for the trip down Birther Myth Memory Lane from July 3,2008. I suppose Obama is still clinging to that hope that the BC issue will go way?
ORYR: Good summation! Here’s proof you are correct.
Not unless you have really good software.
Troll-wise we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
I nominate James for fumiest post of the day!
Ahhh but then Mike we are moving into the realms of Quantum Entanglement and “spooky action at a distance” as Einstein described it.
My God, James has just described how to bypass the local speed of light speed restriction….Quick to the ig-Nobel Prize Committee…….
For his next trick he will work on a cloaking device and piss off the romulans
My, but that is a flash from the past. I wrote about Jay McKinnon’s birth certificate manipulation back in December of 2008, the first month this blog was in operation. McKinnon’s story was hoax. The Israel Insider was one of the early promoters of rumors about the birth certificate publishing claims of forgery just days after the COLB appeared online.
Hehehe… That was the BS/MacGuffin explanation of teleporting I put into a short scifi story I wrote once. Quantum Equivalency I called it, or something.
I’m not at all surprised. I like to do my own research and verification when I can.
I assume you meant this a joke.
If the Obama campaign had used a black marker on the certificate number, they would have indeed invalidated the COLB. However, we know from the FactCheck.org photos that the number is intact, only the scanned image was altered. The scanned image is neither valid nor invalid; it’s a picture. The original certified copy, unaltered, retains its evidentiary value.
Sven, did Polland also explain how to get the Hawaii Department of Health and the Governor of Hawaii to vouch for its contents?
Tim Adams (elections clerk) did not have access to Hawaiian Birth records.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino (Director of the Hawaii Dept. of Health) did have access to Hawaiian Birth records.
Who can speak with authority?
At which point do we realize James lacks the intestinal fortitude to defend his BS and just treat him like the drive-by he is? At least ORYR knows how to play the proper birther pinata.
Who knows what Adams knows? Finally, we have a government official who contradicts liar Fukino. I think Adams statements and knowledge have merit when consider the all of the other mountain of evidence that contradicts a Hawaiian birth.
You mean the sand castle on the beach that was obliterated by the first wave?
I think Adams statements and knowledge have merit when consider the all of the other mountain of evidence that contradicts a Hawaiian birth.
Read Adams’ statement; he didn’t do any of these searches; some unnamed person did, and told him about the “results.”
So: An unbalanced (to be polite) temporary worker says someone else did an unauthorized look into records (records which other election officials say they do not have access to), and that’s your basis for claiming the State of Hawaii is in a huge conspiracy?
151 1961 – 010641
What Adams may or may not know is not evidence, nor is a senior clerk a “government official” by any stretch of that term.
In my mind I see a chart with two columns: one lists the evidence you talk of, and the other shows the “weight” of that evidence. The chart is quite long, corresponding to your “mountain.” The problem is that the “weight” column is zero.
Start with Adams. He says not one word in support of his “professional opinion.” He doesn’t say he (or anyone else) looked up Obama in any of those databases. It would have been a crime if he did. We know he didn’t have access to Hawaiian birth records because the Honolulu City Clerk’s office told me so. Unsupported opinion = 0.
Grandmother tape says Obama was born in Africa. Listen to the tape. She says clearly Obama was born in Hawaii. Lie = 0.
Ron Polarik claims expert analysis shows COLB is a forgery. Polarik is shown not to be an expert (and his analysis is a fraud under technical analysis). Fake expert = 0.
Kenyan ambassador talks about Obama birth place. Kenyan ambassador meant something else, as evidence by follow-up call to him, plus he wouldn’t know anyway. Misunderstanding = 0.
Kenyan birth certificates (2 different). Both obvious fakes–one made from a South Australian birth certificate as a hoax and the other from a convicted forger who made several fatal mistakes. Forgery = 0.
Kweli Shuhubia says unnamed Kenyan regional registrar told him the Obama birth certificate was top secret in Kenya. Shuhubia is a fake name. Unverifiable anonymous source = 0.
Hawaiian law allows registration of foreign births. Law passed in 1982. Obama registered in 1961. Inapplicable law = 0.
You have a mountain of evidence, but it amounts to nothing.
It reminds me of a story about an extremely optimistic child. The parents wanted to give the child a “dose of reality” so one Christmas the child asked for a Pony. Come Christmas morning the child went outside to see her new pony, but was greeted with a pile of manure instead. The child grabbed a shovel and started digging, saying “with all this manure, there must be pony in here somewhere.”
Birthers are like that. They think that with so many questions asked and so many doubts raised, at least one of them has to be valid. I think this view is overly optimistic.
A deposit in an offshore account?
One would think that with a little expertise in Photoshop some birther would have come up with a fake BC that was not so obviously fake. Why do you think that is? Are they all total incompetents? Haven’t they bribed anyone yet to get a sheet of security paper? There appears to a be a ring of counterfeiters (witness the Puerto Rico BC problem) who can make something that at least looks realistic. Why have they been so incompetent at this forgery if it is so important to them?
Adams was a temp, not an “offiicial”; he was working at an office with no access to birth certificate records; he had no reason to access Obama’s records even if he could have — and would have been committing a felony if he tried.
Does this mean that all COLB’s from Hawaii are therefore fakes? Even though the DOH has verified the relevant facts that make Obama a natural born citizen?
Weird,
The problem is that fakes are quite detectable as they always leave some trace.
The one who speaks the words James wants to hear…
Obviously… and sadly…
True, but why are they so obviously fraudulent?
How sad and typical. The birthers have their latest brief OMG moment with the Adams video, which, as with just about all birther hopes, gets soundly ripped to shreds and mocked within mere days.
Unable to deal with the depression swing from their latest failure blowing up in their face, they desperately rush to rehash long dead and thoroughly debunked arguments that they hope every one has forgotten.
Pathetic.
NBC: “The one who speaks the words James wants to hear…”
.
James is actually an Obat portraying a birther in a successful ploy to undermine birthers by showing the ridiculousness of their views.
Good job James, we will pin a medal on your chest, but first you need to remove your shirt.
Brain bleach! Brain bleach! Brain bleach!
This got me thinking. What do you think is the age distribution of birthers? The photos I have seen of their gatherings do not show many under age 40 or 50.
“Any one can replicate what I did; you don’t have to take my word for it”
And when you do Doc (Using software), you invalidate the COLB.
Peter”s guest this hour Joe Kovac”s from wnd.com wrote that a Hawaii election clerk said Obama has no birth certificate.
From the Peter Boyles show. Very good show.
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/061010PETE8A.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=DENVER-CO&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=636&STATION_ID=KHOW-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=Peter_Boyles&PCAST_CAT=Spoken_Word&PCAST_TITLE=Peter_Boyles_Show
Joe Kovac interviewed Tim Adams for about 2 hours about his revelations.
Joe explained the due to sensitive and explosive nature of the birther issue, others invovled along with Tim Adams will likely become very tight lipped about what they know.
But the truth is slowly coming out.
Is Tim Adams a Deep Throat like Phil Berg predicted?
Possibly more Deep Throat will come out.
Lucas Smith’s BC is gaining more credibility
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMF51vXblFI
James, please, please, please get this through your thick skull. The only COLB is the physical piece of paper which is in President Obama’s possession. Any photo or scan of it is not the COLB. IT IS JUST A SCAN!!!!
By your argument, since you have undoubtedly viewed the COLB on your computer & it has since been deleted from your browser’s cache, you have DESTROYED the COLB & should be brought up on the appropriate charges. Think man, (or woman) think! Exercise at least one of your brain cells.
Oh, good point, Sef!!!
I think you’ve really hit on the generational attitude issue, which hasn’t really been addressed nor explored here and I don’t think has truly received enough attention anywhere.
Although there are always exceptions and outliers, it appears that both amongst Birthers & Tea Party folks, the vast majority appear to be at least in their 40’s and a significant amount of them are past “retirement age”.
When you see folks younger than that, they probably tend to come from being raised in very ultra-conservative & sheltered households & communities and only know how to parrot the beliefs & statements that they’ve been exposed to and brainwashed into believing their whole life.
The only Deep Throating around here is coming from birfoons. Adams must be enjoying it.
There are SO MANY additional comments to this which proper decorum prevent.
Is that satire or some other form of comedy? A photograph of a document isn’t an alteration. Actually, taking a picture or scanning a document doesn’t alter a document.
Irrelevant, the COLB may become invalidated but that’s not the purpose of this exercise.
The purpose is to show that assertions that the seal is missing are based on ignorance and that anyone has the power to shake the shackles of being enslaved by lies and myths and determine the facts that can set them free.
Doc provides you with the tools and the choice, but the latter one is something you have to make.
You’re funny… Even though the COLB that shows President Obama has been provided and even though the DOH of Hawaii has corroborated the data that shows President Obama to be a natural born citizen, you’d rather rely on innuendo and myths rather than on the facts.
Fascinating.
Do realize that you have the choice to not let yourself be enslaved by the myths of others… We can provide you with the tools, but the choice remains yours.
What COLB?
It’s a PICTURE.
oof.
how do you suggest a presidential candidate ( or president ) show their birth certificate to every registered voter ? or should they be required to show it to all 300million + citizens of the US ?
G/Sef: I understood raising this issue during the campaign. During a campaogn it’s standard practice to throw all sorts of mud at the wall inhopes of something sticking. And to be fair, Obama was not someone who had been on the national stage for 20 or 30 years, so there was an opportunity to influence people’s opinion of him. Plus, there was at least some remote chance of winning something in court.
But at this late date? Even the dullest tool in the shed must know that there is no chance of winning in court, since all the cases are dismissed. Nor can even those who tip the IQ scales in the single digits really believe that the Obama’s re-election after will have anything to do with his birth. Surely, even the most rabid Obama haters can find some fodder in the things he has actually done in office??? I mean it’s not like he’s been perfect or anything, has he?
Excellent points, Scientist, which cannot be stressed enough!
look online at how many people believe that manning’s “dress up and pretend” was a court ruling. we obviously are in need of a lot of our tools being sharpened.
This is an excellent encapsulation of the situation. I vote for its being turned into an article (if you haven’t done so already) just to show the general paucity of birther claims.
We know Adams. He is a clerk, a government worker and not even close to being a government official. Actually, his title is election clerk.
A description of a election clerk. Nothing in the description of an election clerk’s responsibilities related to health records. So, it seems that birthers have fallen for the oldest trick in the book. Adams in his capacity as election clerk hasn’t seen birth records, and in there lies his lie.
That’s a good policy Doc. One of the pillars of science is that valid results are repeatable. Just ask Fleischsmann and Pons what happens when you forget that precept. Since I posted I found that Native Born Citizen had run the enhanced photos that bring out the embossed seal.
Exactly my intent.
it would be nice to hear from an actual election clerks ( hawaii and other states ) to find out what were the responsibilities, the access to info, and…… office politics were.
preferably “temp”
James, James, dear deluded James…..
You might have mountains of “evidence”, but what you lack is the important part, the objective and substantive evidence.
What you have is anecdotal evidence, presumptive evidence, subjective evidence. Those types of evidence are useless in determining truth, which is why courts don’t allow them.
You might have mountains of subjective evidence, but all it’s going to be good for is really good plant food.
James, a human being would have to have the IQ of sand, in order to actually believe what you post.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt – which means you come here to lie and deceive, in an attempt to spread a false reality online. You fail miserably every time, but you sure are entertaining.
I also overlaid Obama’s COLB with the COLB Polarik provided. Both are 2007 COLB’s and the overlap is self explanatory and expected.
What a little research can do… So who insists on letting others continue to enslave them with myths?
Anyone?
He’s willing to testify!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=165981
Get this guy to LTC Terry lakin’s legal team.
“I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver’s license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone’s identity,” Adams explained. “I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Obama].”
If only they would be this foolish… Of course, he would not be allowed to testify as his testimony would be irrelevant, regardless of its veracity.
He should get Orly to represent him. She can use the sanctions 🙂
James, James, dear deluded James
You don’t actually read anything here but what you write yourself, do you?
Adams has already retracted all that.
Do try to keep up, won’t you?
“I was working there, and this is what it was. I’m not a lawyer, just a civil servant. I know what I know. I know what I was told by the hospitals and by my supervisors.”
Funny you should mention that. WND stated the same thing.
“A separate WND investigation into Obama’s certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren’t originally there.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214
1. Why is it that there is no crease visible in the image posted on top of the page?
According to the factcheck photo (http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_5.jpg) it should be clearly visible in the scan. It intersects the state seal.
2. The newspaper announcement explanation: A fraudulent registration of a Hawaii unattended birth by Obama’s grandparent(s) would trigger inclusion of the birth announcement in the local newspaper.
3. I find it very interesting that Dr. Fukino would say that Obama was born in Hawaii yet she and other DoH officials refused to confim that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007. Repeated requests for such confirmation have been ignored.
Fukino has provided not one shred of proof Obama was born in Hawaii. Her statements simply raise more questions and concerns. The White House has refused all attempts to resolve the issue.
Like Phil Berg has said – If Obama really has a birth certificate WE WOULD HAVE SEEN BY NOW!
Fact Check #4 image has an impurity in the paper on the top left center of the COLB. Ron Polarik has said this may be evidence of the forgery.
Attempts hae been made to raise the seal on Fact Check Image #3 but so far have been unsucessful.
Many of pictures have unusual tints associated with them.
If you look hard on many of the pics, you can also see dots or impurities which can’t be explained.
She has provided the necessary official support for the COLB of President Obama.
I have dismantled many of the myths surrounding the COLB, no wonder you now have to reject the statements by Fukino.
Such as through scanning errors, jpg artifacts?
It is visible with the right parameters. You can even see the crease without such enhancements.
Simple: The former merely reflects the index data, the latter is data which they are not allowed to share.
Any more concerns?
It’s trivially simple to amplify the seal, although, due to its over-exposure, it does not resolve as well as in some of the other pictures.
You’ve already been proven beyond doubt to have been totally wrong about the Daily KOS image lacking a seal. Why you would reasonably expect anyone to continue on your wild gooses chases or take seriously your claims of other anomalies? You’re ticket has expired.
You have laid no foundation for a claim of fraud.
Yo! James! I have some really nice ocean front property in Arizona that I’m willing to sell for $100. Are you interested?
Hey Doc, if you can raise the Certificate # from the black on the Dialy KOS COLB, you might have yourself a valid COLB, assuming you havn’t invalidated the COLB in first place by manipulating it with software.
Good god you aren’t this dense are you? If I rip up a picture of you does that mean I’ve killed you? The black isn’t on the original but on the scan. Changing the scan doesn’t change the document. “Manipulating it with software” doesn’t change the original document.
Because it is irrelevant. A COLB is merely a document that certifies the original record. Since the DOH has confirmed the underlying fact, there is no need for anyone to know anything about secondary documents that confirm the same fact.
And you are assuming that the office even bothers to keep an easily accessible record of when it issues COLBs to anyone… something that there is no particular reason to do. Since the COLB merely attests to the existence of underlying information, then the only thing that is important is whether the underlying information exists — not what day some clerk in the office printed out and issued a certification..
We never seen the orginal doc; only the computer image. Fact Check claimed the saw it but have nothing to show for it except for camera shots which are by definition computer images. No one has ever held the orginal; they have all been print outs of the computer images.
I think James must be of the belief that taking a picture of something steals its soul…
James,
Everyone here realizes that only an actual certified physical copy of the COLB has evidentiary value – and all the evidence suggests that President Obama can easily produce such a document at the request of a court of competent jurisdiction.
And you have never seen what used to be the planet Pluto. All evidence we have of its existence is either its effects on other bodies or images. Do you believe Pluto exists?
I think James is actually Baghdad Bob, just reliving past “glories” and having a bit of fun.
(Pay no attention to the tanks coming down the road, the evidence slamming you in the head, or the birther behind the curtain)
I still can’t believe that people like James try to make such ridiculous arguments about pictures or online images of things. It is such a nonsense argument to make as others have pointed out.
As I’ve said many times here, when we’ve been confronted with such foolishness, these people must believe that WonkaVision is real and for the life of them, they can’t understand why they can’t just reach into their TV or computer screen and pull out an actual document.
Such delusional notions should not be taken seriously when they are uttered by anyone over the age of seven.
<
>
Yet there is no need for any special treatment to see the top crease. Why do we see the difference?
If you look at the factchek photos, the damage to the paper on the edge of the bottom crease (where it intersects the border frame) should have been visible in the scan without any need to enhance the image.
The address shown in the newspaper birth announcement is fraudulent. Obama’s parents never lived there – it is the address where his grandparents rented a home.
Neighbors were interviewed and they said that a black child never lived there.
I have given you a scenario that is plausible – the public data available to us does not exclude the possibility of a fraudulent unattended birth registration.
Unfortunately the DoH would not confirm the validity of COLB published on the web. We have not seen the long form birth certificate that would indicate the birth hospital and the attending physician. Could you provide the motivation for Obama’s behavior regarding the original birth certificate?
If there was a legitimate original birth certificate on file with the DoH, which would confirm the official story of birth in the Kapiolani Hospital, we would have seen it by now. There would be no need to play games with the public.
1. I am sure that DoH office keeps track of money received from public regarding issuing of documents. They have it recorded on their books whether COLB was indeed issued to Obama on June 6, 2007.
2. Dr. Fukino’s claim could be based on a fraudulent unattended birth registration (by Obama’s grandparents). It should be trivial to verify whether Obama was born in Hawaii. The long form birth certificate would tell us whether the official story of birth in the Kapiolani Hospital was true or not.
The fact that there was a confusion about reports of Obama beeing born in Queen’s hospital and the Kapiolani only adds to the suspicion.
3. No Obama supporter has answered the following question: What is the motivation for Obama’s behavior? If he was indeed born in the USA there should be no problem releasing the long form birth certificate. He promised to change the tone of how the business is done in Washington DC – yet even trivial facts about his past are hidden from US citizens/voters.
It does not make any sense to pay expensive law firm to fight the eligibility lawsuits by asking for the dismissal of cases (to avoid the official verification of his birthplace). It woud be much cheaper and easier to release the original long form birth certificate.
Such misinformation. There is only one thing that the Department of Health has to confirm. They have to confirm if they have the original birth record, and they have done that. Everything that birthers have argued is just noise to distract from the existence of one original birth record.
Anotherbird – does this Nc1 person sound familiar? I wonder if Naturalizedcitizen has wandered over at last….
Name one eligibility lawsuit where Obama would have saved paying an expensive law firm, simply by producing a long-form birth certificate. If you cannot name such a lawsuit, then you are repeating things you don’t know to be true, and that wastes your time and our time. I trust that being unable to find such a case, you’ll not make this unfounded statement in the future. (If you do find one, I’ll not say otherwise in the future.)
There is one minor flaw in your argument. They did live there, as evidenced by the city directory! We can thank WorldNetDaily for checking this out. (It’s nice when you have a big staff and big bucks to check things out.)
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/birth-announcement-address-confirmed/
I hope that the light will begin to dawn on you that the birther mythology (such as you asserted above) is based on rumor, not fact. If you spent more time reading old articles on this web site instead of reading birther sites that echo uninformed speculation and outright lies, you would have a much sounder base of information upon which to argue.
I know you guys think Obama supporters regard him as a messiah. Nope. He’s a politician. His motivation is votes. There are no votes in the birther issue because the only ones who care wouldn’t vote for Obama if he released video of his birth in Times Square in front of 30,000 people.
Personally, my greatest hope is that the Republicans will run in 2012 on a flat-out birther platform. Given that every time one of them has made a feint in that direction they’ve pulled back before the day was out, I suspect I will be disappointed.
In fact, when I scanned my own birth certificate, link provided before, the folds don’t show up either. You can SAY that it ought to appear, but your saying something doesn’t make it so.
You might as well argue with a fence post. He/She/It keeps bringing this up even though it has been pointed out half a dozen times in this thread alone.
This one’s easy!
1. The people who would be convinced of Obama’s eligibility aren’t going to vote for him.
2. 69 Million people thought that what was presented was sufficient to prove his bona fides.
3. The birthers delegitimize any Republican candidate who touches the issue. JD Hayworth, for example, is scrambling to disassociate himself from the birthers.
4. Every lawsuit that has been filed has been based on claims in addition to the birthplace (Berg = Indonesian adoption; Apuzzo = non-citizen father; Taitz = stolen SSNs).
The real question is what good would come of releasing the form?
Now, I’m just curious, let’s say the “long form” shows that the birth was attended by a mid-wife, or was unattended, how would you get from there to fraud?
As far as I can tell, you’d still have to prove that he was born somewhere else!
Where are those birth records? The witnesses who attended the birth? The neighbors who saw a black baby living there?
HIPAA doesn’t apply in Kenya. Hawaiian privacy laws don’t apply in Indonesia. Why haven’t you been able to find these records?
This is my favorite part:
Oh, the glories of the passive construction. We don’t care who conducted this interview. And we don’t pause to wonder — how many neighbors are going to remember what happened 50 years ago? How many neighbors even lived there 50 years ago? We just take this assertion, we carefully don’t think about it because it’s fragile and it might fall apart, and we gently cut and paste it everywhere we go.
Kind of like the “nobody remember Obama being at Columbia.” Except for all the people who do, but other than them, nobody remembers him.
And the birthers wonder why nobody listens to them. No wait, they’ve also convinced themselves that everyone agrees with them.
I may have missed an episode here, but I don’t know that the birthers have ever substantiated that any “expensive law firm” has been involved in defending any of the birther suits. Did I miss something here?
The thing I can’t get through my thick birther scull: that “vexatious requester” of the index data revealed that that no request from Obama or any other authorized person who can be identified was seemingly ever made. Who originated this original COLB even Gibbs now claims to have seen and posted on the internet?
And for that matter: How does Lingle authorize anyone to look at a private record and then make a public comment about them without violating the same privacy laws that appropriately govern us?
And here’s one just for the fire: The only time that Obama seemed directly involved was when he flew to HI in late Oct 2008 to visit the “dying”Toots and spent 15 minutes alone in the house (personally collecting the documents tucked into the family Bible that he mentioned in the earlier editions of his autobiography.)
http://letustalk.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/obama-grandmother-madelyn-dunham-10-24-08-1.jpg?w=223&h=344
Not to mention that the “no one remembers a black baby” is based on an affidavit gathered by a birther attorney that actually says nothing of the sort. The neighbors said that as far as they knew, Stanley Dunham and her new husband lived near the university, which makes sense since they were students. They weren’t even ASKED if they’d seen a black baby at Stanley’s parents house…but they did confirm that they knew that the Dunhams’ daughter had gotten married and had a child.
I renew my challenge. Can any birther claim, hand on the Bible swearing to tell the truth, that if Obama released a long-form b.c. (whatever that is) that showed birth in some Honolulul hospital, signed by Dr West or some other doctor who delivered babies in 1961, that they would then vote for Obama in 2012? I fear I will die waiting….
James, I guess it also does not matter to you that the story you refer to is on the webpages of a white supremacist group?
I think it matters to him a lot. I suspect that gives it more legitimacy in his mind….
Contest
James is:
1. 6 year kid sneaking on to Mom’s computer
2. Obat posing as a birther to discredit birthers
3. escapee from Bellevue mental ward
Select one, winner gets an all expense paid trip to manning’s next trial.
We see one fold crease but not the other? The certificate number has been blacked out. It is obvious that the scanned image was modified prior to being posted on the web. What else has been modified?
The fact that DoH would not confirm its authenticity is sufficient evidence for me that this is a forged document/image.
I have another question for you: How do you explain the fact that the DoH refuses to explain the difference in phrases used on Hawaii COLBs: Filed by Registrar and Accepted by State Registrar?
There are Hawaii COLB examples posted on the web containing one or the other. They have the same document revision number printed on them, yet they show a different phrase.
According to Hawaii UIPA law the administrative rules are in the public domain yet the DoH refused to provide the explanation for using these phrases when printing COLBs.
You missed the name Perkins Coie.
Candidate Obama was represented in exactly three cases: Keyes v. Bowen, Berg v. Obama, and Hollister v. Soetoro.
Ask any lawyer: three short motions to dismiss (followed by three short appellate briefs) do not cost “millions of dollars”, especially when the second two could crib from the first one.
First door neighbors have been living there for a long time (before Obama’s grandparents moved in).
One fold is inward, the other outwards. So it takes a bit more effort to see the second fold.
Even though the DOH confirmed all the details on the COLB? Has it occurred to you that there are privacy laws?
Sigh
Obama’s father never lived at the address shown in the birth announcement. The neighbors don’t remember any black children living there either.
Inward versus outward fold
Factcheck photo’s were taken later. So it is reasonable that the folds may have ‘developed’ some imperfections and damage.
Simple logic
DoH did not confirm all details shown on the COLB. They refused to issue index data when the request included the certificate number 10641. They would not comment about the difference in phrases used on Hawaii COLBs: “Filed by Registrar” vs. “Accepted by State Registrar”.
The DoH refused to directly confirm that COLB was issued to Obama on June 6, 2007.
I do not understand the reason for such secretive behavior. In my opiniion the only scenario that explains Obama’s and DoH’s behavior is a fraudulent unattended birth registration. This would give Fukino little bit of a wiggle room to cover her behind.
There is no long form birth certificate that originated in the Kapiolani Hospital. If it existed, we would have seen it by now.
A tip when dealing with “Nc1,” who is either Naturalizedcitizen from the Washington Independent or something who writes, thinks, and posts exactly like her:
The only way to prevent her from clogging your bandwith with the same arguments repeated over and over is to ignore her. Seriously. She is NOT rational about this, never shuts up, and based on a certain sensitivity to dentist jokes, may well be Orly Taitz or a close relative.
Just a friendly warning…:)
As far as I can tell, they were involved in one or two suits directly. Both for short periods of time.
Dear nc1,
Your above question is a good one, but it has been answered for every President in one way or another by a simple common sense and necessary reality. The majesty of the Presidency encompasses abiding by the existing legal interpretations of Constitutional Law currently accepted by the controlling legal authorities. The President’s required defense of the Constitution acquires its legitimacy from the (in this case) OVERWHELMING consensus of those legal authorities about what the Constitution means – in this particular case, that meaning being that Obama is eligible to the Presidency.
Any President who demeaned and disrespected the office by dignifying claims of usurpation based on novel individual interpretations of the Constitution submitted by political whiners and racists or other social malcontents, would be shirking his sworn duty, and inviting paralysis of the federal government by groups like the Birthers whose hypocritical “defense” of the Constitution consists of trying to turn it into a noose with which they can publicly lynch the first Black President.
There are literally millions of novel ways for whining, name-calling political losers to construe the wording of the Constitution and by so doing, reconfigure more to their unelected and unauthorized liking, the current state of our government, including determining who legally is eligible to hold any office. Such an expectation is nothing short of anarchy, as it places above all the controlling legal authorities, the preferences of an adult who is attempting to usurp the power of the entire legitimate government, by having a self-righteous tantrum.
Benji Franklin
Here’s the DOH statement:
“In regards to the terms “date accepted” and “date filed” on a Hawaii birth certificate, the department has no records that define these terms. Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of Oahu or on the neighbor islands of Kauai, Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, or Lanai), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of Oahu) respectively.
Historically, most often the “date accepted” and the “date filed” is the same date as the majority of births occur on Oahu (the island with the largest population in our state). In the past, when births were recorded on paper they may have been accepted at a health office on an island other than Oahu, such as Kauai. The paper record would then need to be sent to Oahu to have a file number placed on it, and the filed date would then be sometime later (as you know, the state of Hawaii is comprised of multiple islands with miles of water in between). The electronic age has changed this process significantly, and it was determined some time ago that one date would suffice.”
Janice Okubo
Hawaii State Department of Health
source
How many other presidents have you seen their COLB?
I’ve never held the Dead Sea Scrolls in my hands, but I know they exist.
I’ve never been to the moon, but I know it exists.
Date filed/date accepted have been discussed here already. Hawaii switched from one to the other as explained by Greg below.
Index data for President Obama has been released and shows him born on US soil. The DOH verified this through Dr Fukino’s statement.
Why do you continue to revisit these myths? You do realize that you are allowing others to enslave you?
Read through this blog you keep bringing up stuff that has been addressed 50 times over
Oh dear….looks like Ole NC1 is also a big old “He’s gotta fake SSN” poster as well on other sites…….
So strictly speaking not precisely a one trick pony although equally incapable of listening to reasoned, fact based discussion based on his/her associated responses.
Well, since the alleged crime happened almost 50 years ago and the perpetrators are dead, there is nothing that can be done about it. Move along, nothing to see folks…
In my opinion, which in a court of law means nothing. Secondly have you ever seen evidence of an unattended fraudulent birth? Or can you show us any documented proof that there has ever been one since HI has been a state? You state “in your opinion” as if this occurance is something that is common or has happen with some regularity. Meanwhile in actuality you cannot provide any proof that such an even has ever occured in HI since 1959. The most common sense and logical opinion is that the President was born in a hospital in HI and the state has the relevant information to support his claim. To quote Dr. Fukino, “Barack Obama was born in Hawaii”.
Excuse me?
Actually that question has been answered a hundred times from sunday. The problem is not that the question has not been answered, it’s that Birthers are incapable of hearing an answer that doesn’t support their delusions,
Here’s one reason. Obama is motivated by duty. It is his duty as the POTUS, as defender of the constitution, not to show you, joe shmuck conspiracy nutbag, any more personal information that is required by law.
One of the rights enshrined for American citizens, and therefore Obama’s duty to uphold, is the right to privacy. If Obama threw open all his personal information to every nutbag in the world, he would be abrogating his right to privacy, and by extension, your right.
By only providing what information is required by law, and which satisfies the law, which he has, he has defended YOUR rights, no matter how muchy you appear to wish to throw them away.
It’s a common term..
It most certainly is not. The American President is not a monarch.
Benji said “majesty of the Presidency”, ie the gandeur of the office. He said nothing about the person holding the office.
As I go over the posts by James & nc1 and other birthers, I can’t, for the life of me, believe that they are actually serious. They must be joking, no sane person can be that dense and deluded. Real birthers can’t type, their straight jackets get in the way. These folks are just funnin’ us.
It’s still not a common phrase when applied to the President. “Power of the Presidency,” yes, but majesty?
@ Greg
Hey thanks for the Hawaii DOH reply on Date Filed v Date Accepted. What I find most informative is the confirmation of what I have said must be the case, that certificates are numbered centrally. It’s a little confusing, but it looked like the Date Filed comes after the Date Accepted when there is a difference.
That’s the birther version of history, but it isn’t true. A private detective said in an unsworn affidavit that he had hired an unidentified person in Hawaii to scout out the neighbors. One neighbor (who did not live next door), Mrs. Arikaka, is reported as saying (no direct quote has been provided from her) that she didn’t remember a black child, but then public records showed the Mrs. Arikaka didn’t live there in 1961 in the first place.
So there’s nothing to this claim whatever. After you see this pattern of claim made and then proven bogus over and over, you get the impression that birthers are gullible.
Article here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/04/obama-birth-announcement-false/
I had never heard that phrase “first door neighbors” before. Usually the phrase is “next door neighbors.” I assume that your phrase is a literal English translation of a common phrase in some language other than English. (I saw someone from Egypt use the phrase on a web site.) Where are you from, if you don’t mind sharing?
Oh yes, Obama had a very, very expensive lawyer, Robert Bauer, defending him in the early Berg v. Obama lawsuit.
However, that lawsuit would not have been settled by any kind of a birth certificate. (Berg claimed Obama lost his citizenship in Indonesia wherever he was born.) Berg wanted discovery of a long list of documents and to depose witnesses, and then go to trial. Those are the things that really rack up the legal expenses. Much more cost effective to must move to dismiss!
And I showed two entries from directories that showed that in fact Dunham did live there.
The facts do not lie…
When I hear something like that, I type “majesty of the presidency” (with quotes) in Google. Got 42,000 hits. A good many of the first ones I found came from a eulogy of Ronald Reagan.
Here at Obama Conspiracy Theories, I say: “Why speculate when you can get the facts?”
When I hear something like that, I type “majesty of the presidency” “united states” (with quotes) in Google. Got 42,000 hits. A good many of the first ones I found came from a eulogy of Ronald Reagan.
Here at Obama Conspiracy Theories, I say: “Why speculate when you can get the facts?”
I first heard the phrase used by a Muslim from Yugoslavia. Googling on the British spelling version “first-door neighboUrs” confirms my suspicion that it is either Yugoslav or Arab influence.
I read James and NC1’s posts and the first thing that comes to mind is “grasping at straws”
Any wisp of a straw is enough to confirm your suspicions- such as Fukino must be lieing because she isn’t saying what you want her to say.
I am not sure if this has been mentioned but I seem to remember that either Robert Gibbs or another spokesman for President Obama said that the beginning of the presidential campaign in 2007 they ordered multiple copies of the birth certificate as part of the information they were compiling for the run. How do we know the Factcheck copy is the same as the DailyKos copy? That could easily explain the differences in folds, tears and embossed marks that fixates the birthers. They would all have been valid copies.
How very odd. I got 30. As in 20+10..
I think a Canerdian can be forgiven for failing to understand that there is nothing majestic about being a servant of the American people.
It reports 42,000 but then it only shows 30
I recall this too, but I have not been able to find it again.
Are the people at the National Journal also Canadian?
I can sort of believe it about the commenters at The American Conservative:
Here it is in a 1975 legal journal, “Making the President more accountable to the people,” 5 Hum. Rts. 47 (1975-1976) by TC Sorensen:
The next time anyone refers to the glory and
majesty of the Presidency as though every occupant of the office has mounted a
pedestal, let him re- member the Nixon tapes.
Henry Kissinger in a 1994 book:
A biography of Carter:
You probably won’t get many Google hits if you type in “Canerdian prime minister” either.
Guess you guys are using a different Google than I am.
Isn’t yours the Google that can’t find the Arizona Rules of Evidence?
Yeah, I wouldn’t trust your Google.
I may have remembered this paragraph from the FactCheck.org article:
We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that’s when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and “all the records we could get our hands on” according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn’t release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama’s citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: “[We] couldn’t get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we’ve found out it’s pretty irrelevant for the outside world.” The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 – 010641.
The photo on DailyKos may have been from a color copy of the document or a scan of a copy. It is likely that in order to black out the certificate number that a copy of a scan was edited then possibly printed and then scanned. There are many logical and likely explanations of any minor differences that might exist between the first image released on DaliyKos vs. the more detailed photographs of the actual document that FactCheck was allowed to examine. Of course, birthers always choose the most sinister explanation possible. Too bad that James, Phil Berg, Orly, et. al. didn’t avail themselves of the opportunity to examine the real thing at the Obama campaign HQ in 2008. Then we could now be talking about how de Vattel wrote the Constitution instead of looking at COLB images.
I touched a piece of the moon at the National Air and Space Museum. That was cool.
42,000 for me too.
Agreed. You need Presence ***** to have Majesty, and Barack Obama is NOT a Vampire.
Yep…
I Just tried it myself. The results:
The funny thing is, this website is now the top listing for that phrase! LOL!
LOL! I’ve never heard of a Canerdian before. I knew birthers were from an alternate bizarro-world universe! 😉
42,000 for me too. I have not actually heard the phrase before, but my DH says he has heard/read it many times. (He is a major history buff, so that could explain it.)
Go to page 4 of the results, or change your preferences to show 100 per page, and see if you still get 42,000.
“About 43,500 results (0.26 seconds)” for me
Dear ELLID and YGuy:
Sef has pointed out how any literate reader would interpret my traditional use of “majesty of the Presidency”. Your objections reveal the profound ignorance of all things Presidential and Constititional which (ignorance) empowers Birthers to definitively interpret Constitutional presidential eligibility. Your interest in both started and ends in consideration of the Constitution and the Presidency as nothing but an Obama ejection seat.
Please spare me your touching concern for defending our Constitutional Republic from the scourge of your most far-fetched mis-construance of any English word having even a derivational connection with royalty. I assume you make an hypocritical exception for Orly who manages to raise money as both “Lady Liberty” AND “Queen of the Birthers”.
Benji Franklin
Teach me to ignore the eulogies for Ronald Reagan…;)
As for NC1, if this is the person I think it is, s/he/it admitted on another board to being Balkan.
Uh, I’m not a birther, just a Democrat who did her best to ignore Ronald Reagan’s obituaries. Huh?
Perhaps you are using THIS Google.
OK guys, yguy is right. Although Google estimates 42,000 hits, it only returns (now) 31 if you page through to the end.
Is that not what I said?
Well I, for one, won’t believe it either, until I see an original, long form, undeath certificate….
A long form birth certificate indicating birth in the Kapiolani hospital would be sufficient proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. Without it we only have a modified COLB image posted on a private Obama friendly web site as a so-called proof. Even Fukino would not confirm its authenticity.
A trivial document like a long form birth certificate is hidden from public. It is easy to create a forged COLB image. It would be very difficult to forge Kapiolani historical records.
Thank you for the link. I have not seen this explanation before.
However something does not add up here. Okubo’s claim that certification numbers were assigned only in the main DoH office in Honolulu clealry makes it very unlikely that the number shown on Obama’s COLB (10641) is a legitimate one. Compare his number with those for Nordyke twins (10637, 10638). The registration date on Nordyke twins’ documents is August 11, 1961. It does not make much sense that the main DoH office issued Obama’s birth certificate on August 8, 1961 using the higher registration number than numbers assigned to Nordyke twins three days later?
I am late to the google party, but that is because I did not believe my results at home and simply had to compare them with my results at work.- which are not different, however.
So, I can report 383,000 googles from Belgium, 31 of which are deemed relevant (meaning google has found them on 31 separate sites); same results from Russia, well http://www.google.ru.
However, to really check the Russian side of things, you need to check http://www.yandex.ru, which now also indexes tetxs in the Roman alphabet linked to from Cyrillic texts (and yes, Cyrillic texts indexed by Yandex include Ukrainian, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Kazakh and Old Slavonic)
It says it found it 40 texts, but then only shows 21 relevant ones. If you ask for all texts, you get only 25 – perhaps the 15 missing are pages which have been scrubbed.
Bing finds 61 instances which it deems relevant. Seems like they are the winners here.
I think he’s an Antediluvian in disguise.
Equally
The Nordyke numbers are fake
The paper work from Obama’s hospital arrived after the Nordyke ones
The worker dealing with the paperwork dropped the in tray on the floor mixing up the paperwork
Hospitals batch up the paperwork and send it in chunks when enough is there
etc
etc
etc
With multiple independent verifications from the authorities in Hawai’ confirming the validity of the records……that makes you either an idiot or a concern troll, you choose
It just makes too much sense. It is strange how a person can get confused about such a simple concept.
Very unlikely? No. The fact that the State of Hawaii says that Obama was born there makes it almost certain that the COLB is a legitimate document from Hawaii, and if so, it is further it is almost certain that the certificate number is dead on accurate.
– It would be incredibly risky to forge a COLB because the person with the actual number could come forward and put someone in jail for vital statistics fraud. If the number were bogus, the campaign would never have let FactCheck.org photograph it
– It would be nigh impossible for a forger to guess a certificate number SO CLOSE to the Nordyke number without knowledge, that could just as well led to a certificate number that was perfectly in sequence.
But there are perfectly plausible reasons that the numbers are not in perfect order (in fact one should be amazed if they all were). One is that two workers processed two batches. Another is that the first stack was placed on the desk, the next stack was placed on top of the first, and then they were worked on top to bottom. That stacking could have happened at the hospital too. It is also likely that there were two doctors involved whose paperwork was taken to be sent to the DoH at different times. They could have been dropped on the floor and picked up in a different order. And on and on.
To describe the numbering we observe as “very unlikely” goes beyond a rational conclusion. It is the work of a birther provocateur. It is an offense against the reader.
There you go again with gratuitous comments about probability. Why do you think the 1961 certificate of birth would be harder to forge? It wouldn’t.
Based on the Nordyke certificate, it appears that all of the original documents have been microfilmed. That means that any document produced by Hawaii would be a medium resolution copy of a copy. I look at my own photoreproduction certificate certified copy from Alabama and it looks pretty grainy. It would be simple to create a fake 1961 hospital certificate and then copy it onto basket weave security paper. The COLB is a little trickier because it is an original document with a complicated cross hatched pattern printed on it. However, for a skilled document forger (such as those who make foreign identity papers for CIA agents or fake documents for illegal aliens) making EITHER form of Hawaiian certificate would be easy, especially once they had a blank piece of security paper.
I know nearly nothing about drawing programs and I made a halfway-decent replica of a 1961 certificate. Think what someone who knew what they were doing and took the time could produce. The main problem I had was trying to reproduce the security paper and that is equally difficult no matter what one is forging onto it.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/08/the-long-form-reconstructed/
I don’t think you grasp the actual situation. The COLB, the long form, Fukino, all are irrelevant. The large majority of Presidents were born at home and most never had a birth certificate, long, short or in-between.
The decision as to Presidential eligibility is made by : (1) the voters; (2) the Electoral College; and (3) Congress and that decision is final and irrevocable. Nothing on any piece of paper changes it. You are fighting a battle that is not only lost but was over 18 months ago.
yguy: “majesty of the presidency” “united states”
42,000 for me too as well.
Why does this matter so much with you?
You have overlooked the fact that long form birth certificate has much more data in it. A forger would have to be very careful not to make a mistake in entering the physicians name and other items not found on the COLB. You would also have to forge the handwriting which is much more difficult that forging the text typed in the COLB.
A froger would also have to worry about the possibility that somebody wouls check the document against the original on file. As far as I know Kapiolani Hospital archive has not burned (yet). The registration books from August 1961 are the key to finding the truth whether the official story about Obama’s birthplace is true.
Neither the popular vote nor the vote in Congress can change the Constitution.
Tell me what other president(s), born after the natural born citizen clause became the only path to eligibility, had their birth reported in three different countries. Very recently (March 25, 2010) a minister in Kenyan government said it on the floor of their Parliament.
Anybody with a grain of common sense should be very sceptical of the official birth story.
Your screen name is funny in this context: Scientist
Why is it so hard for the birthers tio understand…
You’re never going to see the “long form birth certificate”.
Why?
Because you’re not entitled to it.
End of story.
And just how do you propose to have standing in order to get at this “ultimate truth”?
Mix-ups in the ordering of birth certificate processing would presumably not be seen as a problem and would not have been seen as something to avoid. It is not as though someone had greater rights than another because their birth was registered first.
At HM Land Registry, meanwhile, the order of arrival of documents for the registration of different interests in relation to the same land can have quite substantial legal consequences. I am told that this is why a pile of paper getting knocked over once led to many hours investigation to get the order of processing right. As the system of land registration is now largely automated, this is less of a problem today.
I find it interesting that so many birthers wave their decades-old birth certificates and claim that they have stronger proof of their birth than Obama has of his when he waves a COLB that the Hawaii Department of Health issued within the past few years. Just as modern currency, passports, and driving licences come with greater security features, so do birth certificates issued now. The ability to commit fraud with a fake birth certificate would probably be reduced somewhat if there were a requirement that only certificates issued within the past ten years be acceptable.
There’s the rub, isn’t it?
Idle speculation just isn’t enough to warrant invasion of privacy of ANY American citizen. That is why they will never get standing. That is why they will never win any of their frivolous lawsuits. “‘Cause I wanna” just isn’t sufficient reason to abrogate someone else’s constitutional rights, especially when the legally required certification has already been done.
“Waaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!” is not yet a recognized plea in Juriprudence.
As was pointed out to NC at least a dozen times on another board, the President’s birth was reported by a reliable source in ONE country, the United States. The other “reports” are from smear sites or were misprints that were corrected almost immediately.
The numbers were assigned at the destination (main DoH office) – not in the hospital. If the Nordyke twins’ documents were sent several days later than Obama’s it is logical to assume that their certificate number would be higher.
The worker dropping the paperwork on the floor is a funny excuse. It must have been a mighty mess on the floor of the DoH office that would require at least three days to sort out.
There has been no independent confirmation of Obama’s Hawaii birth. A fraudulent registration of an unattended birth scenario fits the evidence and the behavior of both Obama’s camp and the DoH.
At some future date, it will be possible to access the long form as an historical document.
I assume that Obama would have to be dead for this provision to apply, but in 2036, the birthers may have another avenue to pursue to see the long form.
In 1961, Obama’s birth was reported in Hawaii. What are the other two countries? Show me the announcements, please.
So, call him up and ask him on what personal knowledge he bases this information. There is no HIPAA holding you back, no Hawaiian privacy laws.
Of course, you guys jump on any misstatement while ignoring the thousands of times that people have said that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is classic confirmation bias. Actually, it’s an extreme form of confirmation bias, seen most often in conspiracists.
“Anybody with a grain of common sense should be very sceptical of the official birth story”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BIRTHERS FOREVER
nc1, for your enlightenment had Obama been born in HI prior to Aug 21, 1959 there would be absolutely no question of his eligibility, because the grandfather clause would have been relevant.
I think this is another nail in the coffin of the 2 citizen parent argument. If someone were born in HI on Aug 20, 1959 & they are eligible independent of parentage (the NBC clause doesn’t apply) then the same must be true for someone born in similar circumstances after statehood.
Not to pile on but what 3 countries had Obama’s birth been officially reported? I know of the US, where the governor of HI and the director of Health both stated on the record that Obama was BORN IN HAWAII. And supported such a statement with an official document. But I am unsure of any other other country that has done the same. So can you elighten us? Some minister in Kenya is not an official statement. That is just hearsay. However the better question is this. Why hasn’t anyone flown over to Kenya (not the DR like Lucas Smith) and officially deposed this offical and attempted to enter this official deposition into the record? Why hasn’t anyone interviewed him and asked on what evidence does he base his statement on? Why hasn’t anyone contacted the so called hospital in Mombassa? This are all simple things that could be done, but are not being done by any of the so called “birther” leaders. Don’t you wonder why? Are you all afraid of the answer you might get?
Given that federal law (Health Insurance Portability and Privacy Act of 1996) prohibits the hospitals from saying anything, and the fact that Obama’s Hawaiian relatives are deceased, and that it was 49 years ago, exactly what independent confirmation would you normally expect to see? Perhaps a comment from a family friend?
The family friend, Barbara Nelson, did so confirm in a newspaper article. So exactly what other confirmation would you expect to see that you don’t see?
I have never physically handled a Hawaiian birth certificate and I do not know the security features they use, but just on the surface, the Hawaiian certificate is just laser or photocopy on some fairly uninteresting security paper. Even in the 70’s when I was printing COLBs in South Carolina we had itaglio printing, erasure resistant paper and complex scroll work that showed patterns when viewed on edge. When I applied the “watercolor” operator that I used to bring out Obama’s seal on my own birth certificate, big black VOIDs appeared all over it. Nowadays, certificates have thermal ink (like your ADP check back if that company does your payroll), watermarks, microprinting and stuff even I don’t know about.
or bush…. or clinton….or bush….or reagan…. or carter….or ford….or nixon… or johnson…
How dare you confront him with logic?
You have a point that the miscreant would have to know things to make a “perfect forgery”. But he would really only need to get the name of one deceased doctor, like Dr. Rodney T. West. Signatures are easy to fake. The name and signature of the local registrar can be copied from the Nordyke certificate. So there’s not much in the way of difficulty. My Stanley Ann Obama signature looks pretty good for a rush job, don’t you think?
But the main reason I wanted to reply was to ask specifically what “registration book” you are talking about.
“There has been no independent confirmation of Obama’s Hawaii birth. A fraudulent registration of an unattended birth scenario fits the evidence and the behavior of both Obama’s camp and the DoH.”
No- really it doesn’t fit the evidence. The evidence all points to President Obama being born in Hawaii. The behaviour of President Obama has been to essentially ignore the Birthers once he offered to show his BC and posted a copy on the internet.
In your scenario, the DOH would be actively supporting fraud- assuming there is some evidence of fraud- or are you just assuming that any evidence of a home birth would constitute evidence of fraud? Because that would be a surprise to most past presidents.
I keep coming back to trying to figure out a Scenario that makes any sense- lets try shall we?
Scenario a: The Hawaiian BC shows it was a home birth, and something- somehow(how?) indicates that it is probably fraudulant. Assuming that is the case, why would Fukino put her liberty on line by her clear statement that she had looked at the original documents and that President Obama does qualify as a Natural Born Citizen? It seems incredibly unlikely- not that deters a Birther but for most reasonable people we would assume that an elected official would not risk jail time for no apparent motiivation
Scenario b: As above the Hawaiian BC shows it was a home birth, but no hint of fraud. This would make the BC…..completely legitimate. Huff and puff as much as you want, but there is no requirement that the President provide what you consider proof- otherwise any presidential candidate would hostage to the whim of 300 million Americans. Unless there is evidence of fraud it would be accepted- heck I would accept it- and it would be just as valid as the birth certificate of Richard Nixon.
Scenario c: BC shows the hospital that President Obama was born. This is of course the most likely scenario, but even if the ‘long form’ is ever shown, folks like yourself will be calling for confirmation from the hospital records, proving that you never did care about the ‘long form’ but just verification of what you have chosen to believe.
The “independent confirmation” of Obama’s birth documents comes from Dr.Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Alvin T. Onaka, Registrar of Vital Records of the state of Hawaii, Governor Linda LIngle, Governor of the state of Hawaii and Mark L. Bennett, Attorney General of the state of Hawaii. Since all of the aforementioned state appointed and elected officials are Republicans, it lends even greater credibility to their confirmations.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”—July 27, 2009
Well, it all comes down to this. Am I going to believe the director of the Hawaii Department of Health and the governor of the state of Hawaii who have access to every record or am I going to believe a former temporary election worker who had no access to any birth records, chose to go on a racist radio show, and is now backing off his story? If I am birfer there is no choice. Way to go patriot Tim! Finally someone of great authority has spoken the truth! If I am a rational person I say who the fu&% is Tim Adams?
Could someone answer me this, if we get the long form and it says it was an unattended birth filed by Grandma, what then?
The birth certificate still has the same evidentiary value. Grandma’s dead. Mom’s dead.
Don’t you still have to prove that Obama was born elsewhere than Hawaii?
The Constitution has not changed. The question is what is necessary to establish that the requirements are met. And THAT decision is made by the voters and by Congress. Who do you propose to make the decision? The 3 Sooges (Taitz, Apuzzo and Donofrio)? Sorry, I prefer the people and their elected representatives.
Actually, i don’t have to even consider the matter, because Obama is President until 2012 and there is not a blessed thing you or anyone can do about it. Unlike you, I can actually spend the next couple of years thinking about the important questions that face the world. Or I can relax and enjoy life, instead of worrying that the world is about to end, as you birthers seem to do on a daily basis.
The numbering is very unlikely if the Okubo’s statement is true.
Your explanation would make sense only if registration numbers were pre-printed on forms sent to hospitals. However, that would be contrary to what Okubo said about numbers being assigned in the DoH main office.
The only scenario that I can think of, which would fit Okubo’s statement is the one where a blank form was sent to the hospital and the certification number was stamped on the birth certificate once it was processed in the DoH office. This scenario makes your explanation about different batches of files (processed in different order) as a cause for out-of-order numbers rather unlikely. If the numbers were stamped on the form it is certain that a form processed three days later would have a higher registration number.
We can either trust Obama campaign and assume that the registration number is correct – in this case Okubo’s statement is false, or if we trust Okubo’s statement – Obama’s registration number is suspicious.
What am I missing here?
Here’s a piece of the puzzle.
“What am I missing here?”
http://disqus.com/nooneofconsequence1/
nooneofconsequence1
I believe Mrs.Nordyke has explained the number conundrum herself. She said on Plains Radio in an interview in May (where she was treated like a criminal) that the birth certificate numbers were assigned upon arrival at the hospital on Friday, August 4. Her twins were assigned 10637 and 10638. Mrs. Dunham arrived later and was assigned 10641. Stanley gave birth the same evening while Mrs. Nordyke was in labor for 22 hours and gave birth to the twins on August 5th. This probably explains why her twins BC’s were processed later by the DOH. Plains Radio has now disappeared and the archive of the show is no longer available.
I personally talked to Mrs. Nordyke about this and other issues. Because she was treated so rudely on Plains Radio she will not do any more interviews. She is a delightful lady and shared other memories of the President’s upbringing with me. She also thinks birther lawyers are just in it because they hate the President and some want to make money.
Indeed, it is exactly as you say. Birth certificates are blank forms printed on plain paper. Once they are filled out, they go to the state and when they are processed they are stamped at some point by a numbering machine. States vary in their procedures. In some the certificate is numbered before the record is filed, and in some they are numbered after. In either case, I think it’s likely that a stack is processed and signed by the registrar, then taken over to the numbering machine to be stamped with the number. (Only when certified copies are created are the forms printed or photocopied onto security paper.)
Obviously, NC1 has not worked a large office with hundereds of forms passing through every day. It does not suprise me. In the past, I have dealt with people who call an international foundation and inquire, “I sent in a $50 check a week or so ago. Do you remember seeing it?” Sure, out of the thousands of checks received in a day, we would remember that one. They have no idea the scale of things.
Majority Will –
Nice catch. Here’s another candidate: *N*aturalized*c*itizen
http://washingtonindependent.com/61111/rep-trent-franks-obama-should-release-long-form-birth-certificate
Truly, I don’t have a clue what you mean. I assume that in your mind this makes sense and in my mind it makes no sense at all. Perhaps you could try to explain what you mean by “invalidate” and help me to understand your thinking.
I’m sure Mrs. Nordyke is a nice lady, but she is just speculating about certificate numbers. We know from Janice Okubo’s statement that certificates are numbered by the state, not the hospital.
Hmm they seem to jump to random conclusions. I wouldn’t be surprised if its him
@Dr. Kenneth Noisewater –
I’m 90% certain that nc1 is Naturalizedcitizen. The arguments, the argumentativeness, the repetition, and most of all language use consistent with the poster being from the Balkans – it all fits.
Prediction: if I’m right, nc1 will stop posting in this thread when backed into a corner, then start posting in another thread with almost the same arguments.
Realitycheck- thanks for the post about Mrs. Nordyke.
One thing I have never understood is where the Birthers got the Nordyke BC’s from- or even if anyone has ever seen the originals. Where did that whole thing start- especially since it sounds like Mrs. Nordyke is pro-Obama
HI everyone.
Can I direct the conversation to Gibbs’ recent statement made when last responding to the press corps
“I’ve seen the real birth certificate. And I posted it on the internet.”
These are powerful “I” statements from a man whose professional life is to disseminate information. Even more powerful, to me, than Fukino’s carefully prepared “I” statement
that she has seen the vital records. Can someone here truly unpack Gibb’s claims? I know it might be dismissed as thow away line to say when leaving the room and ending the conference. But he must be held to the meaning of his words. It would certainly quell a bit of the chatter.
By the way, Here’s my two cents: the only “real” birth certificate (i.e. not COLB, not Image , not scanned, not altered, not not raised sealed, not photshopped, etc.) may be the one mentioned in “Dreams of My Father” that was tucked away in the family Bible with immunization records and old photos. This BC was certainly in existence before the COLB nonsense began when Sen. Obama first campaigned to become Prez. Obama.
How conspiracy -like would it be that Obama collected that “real ” BC on his last 22 hour trip to visit his soon to die Gramdma “Toots” in late Oct 2008. The only evidence ( other than the subsequent COLB and his grandmother’s own words) that confirm his birthplace: gone. ( As I write this last line, I’m reminded of his Kenyan Grandmother and what she had to say. And then what what said about that. Ah, Derrida, you were are right to note that Being is eventually elided by the trace of the play: or in other words, what is said, what is done, what is heard, smelled, seen, touched, tasted, is eventually replaced by what is written.)
@E GLenn Harcsar
Your speculation that Obama visited his dying grandmother not because he loved her and wanted to say good-bye, but to retrieve his birth certificate, is vile.
Sven,
Irrelevant and nasty as always.
Guess what the COLB is the real birth certificate, get over it and work on your social skills
Yeah I’m reminded of his Kenyan grandfather’s second wife and how she said she was in Kenya when Obama was born in Hawaii. I’ve heard worse from birthers about him visiting his dying grandmother such as them saying it was awfully suspicious that she died when he visited her and implying that he had something to do with her death to shut her up. Crazy birther types.
That would be tinfoil hat conspiracy-like.
Like all conspiracy delusions it depends on a whole series of presumptions, each of which is somewhat unlikely, at least much less likely than the simple explanation, but because they are likelyhood additive, when put together they become so incredibly implausible that it defies reason.
If you’re going to flaunt Occam’s Razor a thousand times in one conspiracy, you’d better make sure that tin-foil beanie is good and thick.
Hi Ellid. I thought that might be possible as well with the concern trolling and the same repetitive, pedantic, obstinate and sophist blather. I suppose an “LOL!” might seal it.
Then again, I suspect some birthers have many, many different “voices” as they do on topix.com. Like Son of Sam’s loquacious demons.
The inappropriate “LOL!” would be a tip off, as would unusual sensitivity to criticism of Orly Taitz. We’ll see.
Nordyke certificates were signed by the physican on August 11, the same date when the form was processed in the DoH office. It would make sense that the numbers 10637 and 10638 were stamped on these forms the same day. It tells me that they process forms quickly.
Yet in Obama’s case to get the number 10641 the registration number must have been stamped three days after being signed by registrar. It seems odd to me.
There is always an exception when it comes to Obama and his past (the SSA# from CT is another example).
Maybe not. When I went rummaging through my old family papers, I found a “birth certificate” for me, issued by the hospital. It’s a souvenir and has no legal value. Of course the COLB is in no way “not real.”
The better question is why do the birthers just assume that her COLB or BC’s are accurate? Not for nothing her children’s information could have been fraud. We just have her word that she gave birth in the hospital and that those BC’s are legitimate. I am not saying we should doubt her but I am using the same standard of proof that the birthers like to use for anything closely supporting Obama. Remember no one has ever confirmed any of her information. The birthers just take it as the truth when it benefits their cause.
Yes, that does make sense. However, it is not a certainty.
What I do know with certainty is that if the COLB were a forgery, whoever did it would guilty of a crime in Hawaii. The Hawaii Department of Health is well aware of the fact that an Obama certificate is posted on line. Discussions of what information to release involved the Hawaii Attorney General. Unless you allege a cover up on the part of the Hawaii Department of Health, the COLB is what it appears to be. In order for the birther theory to be true you have to have a conspiracy of one or more Obama relatives in 1961, official malfeasance on the part of the Health Department in 1961, the Government of Kenya today, the President Obama and the Obama Campaign in 2008, and the present Hawaii Department of Health abetted by the Governor of Hawaii.
I find the likelihood of such a chain of conspiracy vanishingly small. So while it’s likely Obama’s certificate would have been processed and numbered before Nordyke’s, it wasn’t, and there are many possibilities more likely than a huge cover up.
If you’d worked with government data as long as I have, you’d know that (in the immortal words of Forrest Gump) “IT HAPPENS.”
Talk about overpriced…
He has confirmed, once again, that conservatives are reptilian.
Opinion inflation — There’s an app for that.
BHO BIRTH CERTIFICATE INQUIRIES CAN QUICKLY TURN INTO MAD DEATH CERTIFICATE INQUIRIES
as conspiracies go. Please don’t tell me I’m vile; tell me where I’m wrong.
DOT
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20081025_Obamas_emotional_visit_home_ends_quietly.html
Obama left Honolulu at about 5 p.m. yesterday, less than 22 hours after arriving for a trip considered risky by some political observers since the tight race for the presidency is nearing the finish line.
The Democratic candidate visited her briefly after arriving Thursday night and returned to Dunham’s apartment at about 8:15 a.m. yesterday. He spent the night at the Hyatt Regency Waikiki but spent most of yesterday at the apartment where he lived from age 10 to 18. Workers at the hotel said that before he was famous, Obama and his family would stay at the hotel for their annual December visits to see his family here.
Just after 10 a.m. yesterday, Obama, wearing a black polo shirt, jeans, black slippers and sunglasses, emerged from the apartment building and went for a walk through his old neighborhood.
DOT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/15/barack-obamas-late-grandm_n_144090.html
Neither Obama nor his sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, attended. A private family ceremony is likely to be held sometime next month when Obama is expected to visit the islands.
Dunham was cremated but will not be interred at the cemetery, where her husband’s ashes are kept, said Tomimbang. She did not know what the family plans for Dunham’s ashes.
Obama scattered the ashes of his mother, Stanley Ann, who died in 1995, from an Oahu shoreline.
DOT
http://www.newser.com/story/46166/obama-bids-farewell-to-toot-on-hawaiian-shore.html
Barack Obama said a final goodbye to his grandmother at a memorial service in Hawaii yesterday, Reuters reports. Madelyn Dunham, whom Obama affectionately called “Toot,” helped raise the president-elect when his mother went to work in Indonesia. Obama left the campaign trail to rush to her bedside when she became seriously ill in October. She died of cancer just two days before he won the election.
“She’s the one who taught me about hard work,” Obama said of his grandmother when he accepted the Democratic nomination. “She’s the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life.” Obama scattered her ashes from the same spot on the Oahu shoreline where he scattered his mother’s after her death in 1995.
DOT
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/is-obamas-mother-still-alive—for-what-it-is-worth/blog-252389/
Ann Dunham’s father seemingly never died and married another woman. Ann seemingly never died and is alive and well to this day. Did Obama’s grandmother really die recently?
=====Keep in mind there were no funerals, just memorial services for each person. Also, there is no record of a Stanley Ann Dunham having been treated and dying in a Cancer Institute in Hawaii that Obama has made claim to. They have no record of her having died or even being there at all.=======
A death certificate was discovered for a Madelyn Dunham of Kansas in 2005 (Did Madelyn move back to Kansas at some point and time?)
What we’re told
– November 7, 1995, Stanley Ann (Dunham-Obama) Soetoro allegedly died of “ovarian cancer” at age “56.” Her body was cremated; there was no funeral. Memorial service held in her honor at the University of Hawaii. No info on BHO attending; But “helped scatter her ashes over the Pacific Ocean.”
No death certificate was discovered for Stanely A. up until just one month before election day. Blogsphere was buzzing with no finding or record of Ann’s death, but on magically appeared in one database, then within the next few days, a couple of others with a death record. The database indicated that the “government” of or through California submitted the information (Nancy Pelosi’s home state and where her district is/was)
Being is buried under the trace of the play.
Janice Okubo would be the definitive source for how the certificates are numbered now. It’s reasonable that she may have knowledge as to how things have been done in the past decade or so. But I don’t think her present position would give her special insight or knowledge as to the exact procedures that were followed in 1961.
Her remark was in the context of terminology used in 1961 on Obama’s birth certificate. I sounds to me like she did some research. Hospital numbering doesn’t make sense or work for a number of reasons. Okubo said:
Dear E Glenn Harcsar: OK. Maybe no one is dead. Not Elvis, not JFK, not Hitler. Maybe they are all wandering the Earth as Zombies. I think if you check on imdb you will find movies on this topic.
By the way, it has been my experience that all people who use an initial followed by a middle name are untrustworthy and hiding something. Think back to Watergate-G Gordon Liddy, E Howard Hunt. I can’t even begin to imagine in your case.
Where you are wrong is in clinging to a completely debunked nutbar conspiracy theory which has not one stitch of objective evidence to support it, and mountains of objective evidence that shows it false.
Where you are vile is in going so far as to suggest that a person visiting his dying grandmother is doing so for the purpose of destroying evidence, rather than to say goodbye. Especially since there is absolutely no objective evidence to show any reason or motivation for him to do so.
And no, your idle presumptive speculation is NOT objective evidence or reasonable grounds.
E Glenn –
All you have done is reprint newspaper articles showing that a devoted grandson loved his dying grandmother enough that he risked the most important election of his life to see her one last time. There is NOTHING in the published reports, NOTHING, that even hints at the President having an ulterior motive in his last trip to Hawaii before his grandmother’s death.
I stand by what I said before: you are vile.
It was “certainly” in existence then? And how do you know this?
Obama found his birth certificate, vaccination records and a newspaper article about his father when he was in high school. This means that it was at least 31 years ago when he discovered his “original” birth certificate (and how do we know it was his “original” copy?). Who knows what happened to it after that? Perhaps his mother took it with her when she moved back to Indonesia in 1977. Perhaps it was misplaced. I don’t know, but more to the point is the fact that you don’t know, yet you claim that it was “certainly” in existence when Obama began campaigning for president.
And would you and your fellow birthers at least try to get your facts straight? Obama says nothing in his book about finding the birth certificate in the “family Bible.” He never mentions a family Bible. Perhaps if you actually did your own research, instead of relying upon talking points which you find on birther blogs, you would begin to see the light.
That was explaining the difference between the term “accepted” and “filed” – not in relation to how numbers were issued. Obama’s birth certificate was filed on August 8, 1961 and has a number ending in #641. The Nordyke certificates were accepted on August 11, 1961 (3 days later), and have numbers ending in #637 and #638. We know this from the information on the face of the certificates themselves.
So if you accept Okubu’s statement as indicating the 1961 practice — how do you explain the out of sequence numbers? Clearly, Obama’s certificate was “filed” before Nordyke’s were “accepted”?
I can think of a number of ways this could have happened, so the discrepancy doesn’t bother me — but whatever explanation I come up with would have the issuance of the number taking place before “filing”. For example — all three births took place over a weekend. Despite the “miles of water” between various islands in Hawaii, the distance between the Honolulu hospital and DOH office is probably best measured in terms of “blocks of pavement”. So lets say that on Monday morning some employee arrives at the Dept. of Health with partially filled out certificates, gets them entered into a roster at the Dept. of Health and numbers issued (in no particular order other than the order in which the stack was handed over), and then returns with the now-numbered (but as yet unfiled) certificates to the hospital in order to obtain the necessary signatures and fill in remaining data.
I’m speculating, but the advantage of such a system (in terms of 1961 technology) is that for record-keeping the DOH gets a roster of births very near the time that the births occurred, even though the final paperwork might be delayed. It reduces the likelihood of lost or missing paperwork, at least for hospitals located near to the DOH.
But my main point is simply that the known facts are that 2 certificates of births that took place after Obama’s, and where the filing took place after Obama’s, bear numbers that sequentially are lower than Obama’s. The birthers like to point to that as some sort of reason to invalidate Obama’s COLB — but that seems to me to be backwards and rather unscientific. I’ve got 3 data points – rather than assuming a set of facts that would invalidate my data, it makes more sense to me to revise whatever hypothesis we have concerning issuance of numbers to be consistent with the known data.
Again — Okubu was answering a question about the word “file” vs. “accept” – not about the system then in place for issuance of numbers. I would assume that the system for numbering certificates might have changed at various times over the years as technology advanced.
Are you surprised? This is how Julius Streicher found an audience for his newspaper.
Sigh.
From the Social Security Death Index:
STANLEY A DUNHAM
Born: 23 Mar 1918
Died 08 Feb 1992
Last Residence Honolulu, HI 96826
SSN 514-03-4824 (issued in Kansas)
STANLEY A DUNHAM
Born 29 Nov 1942
Died 07 Nov 1995
Last Residence Honolulu, HI 96826
SSN 535-40-8522 (issued in Washington)
MADELYN LEE PAYNE DUNHAM
Born 26 Oct 1922
Died 02 Nov 2008
Last Residence Honolulu, HI 96826
SSN 558-20-7458 (issued in California)
You can search for yourself here:
http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi
I listened to the Nordyke interview on the show with Joe Scabies (sp?). She seemed quite clear that numbers were assigned based upon hospital arrival time. It is quite plausible that hospitals were given a batch of pre-numbered forms to report birth information to the DoH or a block of numbers to assign. Regardless, we have to remember that this was 1961 and before the computer age. It is likely that the births for the weekend were all batched in random order and sent to the DoH the following week. The birth certificate has the time and date of birth and that is all that is really needed. The certificate number is just a record number and not really significant other than being a unique identifier.
I always comes back to the inescapable fact the the Obama COLB is probably the most validated birth record in the history of the Untied States. I cannot think of a another birth certificate that has been verified by a public statement of a governor and the head of the department of health. Can you?
I do not agree that this is plausible. In a manual system where you don’t have computerized keyword searches, it is important to be able to index documents simply and to file them efficiently. If batches of forms were pre-numbered, then the State would have no idea what numbers it would receive and when. That means that it would have to be constantly inserting later documents in the books of previously filed documents. It would be a clerical nightmare. It would be even worse for microfilming. Further we know statistically that Obama’s birth certificate number falls exactly where it should fall if birth certificate numbers were assigned sequentially through the year. And finally, there is no benefit in pre-numbering the forms and creating these headaches.
I’ve worked with vital records and medical records for almost 40 years, and I know that pre-numbered forms never work unless you are trying to control documents, and a blank birth certificate is not a controlled document.
I discussed these points in my articles:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/12/where-is-the-nordyke-birth-announcement/
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/obama-birth-certificate-number-proves-its-a-fake-busted/
Birthers aren’t interested in facts that contradict what they need to believe to validate their delusions.
They only pay attention to presumptive speculations they can pretend are facts.
First, I do not think it is a reasonable assumption that the Department of Health had one registration procedure for births in Honolulu and another for the rest of the state. Second, no well-designed administrative procedure is going to require shipping documents back and forth. That’s the kind of thing you get business analysts to fix. It is inefficient and it introduces the risk of losing a document. (Have you ever seen anything like you are suggesting with legal documents filed with a court, and if not, why not?) Indeed one of the major problems in death registration is the need for the extra step of getting a physician to certify a cause of death on a document initiated by a funeral director (leading to all sorts of technological solutions on the market to fix this).
Before computer systems implemented tight editing on data entry, querying for more information was not unusual (more often with deaths than births). However, even when that happened, the normal procedure is to send a letter requesting that the additional information be provided (usually on a mini-form in the letter); the document itself is not sent back. I suppose in the case of a missing signature a document might be completely reject and returned, but I cannot see how it is plausible for a hospital to submit forms that weren’t signed. That has to be an extremely rare situation.
The only situation in my experience where blocks of numbers are assigned to remote offices is when that remote office has to issue a document, say in a pre-computerized drivers license issuance procedure. The alternative is to embed the office code in the sequence number, for example the 151 at the beginning of a Hawaiian state file number is the code for Hawaii, an entity that issues its own numbers.
If the central office numbers the records, the records are ready for numerical filing without sorting, there are no gaps in numbers, one has a count of all the births registered during the year without performing any calculation, and there is no administrative procedure of distributing pre-numbered blank forms or in assigning blocks of numbers.
It’s analogous to a court issued summons. A case number is obtained with the filing of a complaint, and then blank summonses are issued with that case number — after a copy of the complaint is served, the process server completes the return of service on the summons and then returns the document to the clerk for filing. The process server must work with an “original” summons – they can’t just return a photocopy.
OK, here’s what we know:
On August 8, 1961, document #10641 is “filed”.
On August 11, 1961, documents number #10637 and #10638 are “accepted”.
How do you explain the fact that the number on the August 8th document is sequentially higher than the August 11th document?
Or, do you agree with the birthers that such out-of-sequence numbering is evidence of fraud?
(I’d note that I didn’t say anything about block numbering from hospitals — I just hypothesized a situation where the hospital registers births with the DOH in order to obtain numbers ahead of the time the actual paperwork is submitted. Whether it is done the same way or not on outlying islands is irrelevant, especially without evidence of the typical time lag in 1961 between date of birth and filing of the certificate. Again, Okubu said nothing about the numbering system — maybe all the local health department offices on various islands used the telephone to call up the central office and have numbers issued, and all the numbers were written down and recorded in a central ledger.
I don’t know and I’m not claiming to know. But you haven’t provided any explanation — so it seems to me that you are saying that in your expert opinion based on 40 years of handling vital records, you don’t. know. If I am mistaken in that understanding of what you are saying, please enlighten me.)
First, I believe that Akubo’s statement that the records were numbered centrally is historically accurate. I say that because it seems logical, in line with my experience, and such a major policy item like that is likely to be remembered. On the other hand, the internal office procedure of when numbers were applied is not logically necessary, something which in my experience varies, and it is a matter of such minor detail that it is unlikely it would be remembered.
Central numbering, if it were the policy, would be always done. However any number of things might force the application of these numbers to pieces of paper at the central office to go off track. Say, for example, the numbering machine broke down, or one of the clerks was out sick or on vacation to Kenya and work on her desk was left unattended for a few days.
Statistically, Hawaiians were born at the rate of 48 per day in 1961. In the three processing days (Tuesday – Friday) between the two file dates, one would expect about 144 children to be born. The fact that Obama and Nordyke are so close suggests some clustering mechanism at work. Once we understand why they are close, I expect we will understand how they could be out of order. The hospital-numbering on admission scenario fits the numbering facts, but that’s about all it fits. Now if Mrs. Nordyke had actually said, “The number was on the certificate when I signed it,” that would be evidence (although it was almost 50 years ago), but I strongly suspect that her explanation for the numbers was just a theory. I mean, what expectant mother in labor bothers herself with when certificate numbers are applied to documents? She had no reason to know, and that’s why I dismiss her statement. And even if the hospital did pre-number certificates, they wouldn’t do it at admission because the baby might be stillborn and there would be no certificate.
If I am going to say that Tim Adams’ claim about Obama is bogus because he had no reason to know, I have to apply the same level of skepticism to Mrs. Nordyke’s testimony about internal hospital document numbering. She had no reason to know either.
So in my semi-expert opinion, I don’t know why the numbers are out of sequence. In my semi-expert opinion, I know things involving human procedures don’t always work reasonably and I’ve spent years sorting them out. Stuff happens. I am not in the least concerned that the numbers are out of sequence. I would like to explain it, but I won’t adopt an explanation that I cannot defend and that I do not believe. And I certainly do not consider fraud even a remote possibility.
One thing I’d add — you ask about difficulties finding death certificates. I would expect it to be not difficult but practically impossible. Most states will not make public any kind of vital record, except after a long time has passed (though I don’t know specifically the rules in Hawaii).
However, there are other kinds of official records of death that are public — the Social Security Death Index (as Rickey points out above) and probate court records are two that I know of.
“Conspiracy theorists are never swayed by the implausibility of their theories, so last month I showed you a scanned image of my own birth certificate, which has an embossed seal that doesn’t show up when scanned. This is because the lighting from a scanner is dead on and creates no visible shadow. The seal is just dents in the paper that only show when shadows change the brightness of the reflection.”
Someone used this blog/web-site in disputing a post of mine in which I argue that Obama has not shown eligibility. This comment I’m leaving here is not meant to argue that issue as your bias is as apparent as any I may have.
I will refute your contention regarding embossed seals though, and to demonstrate the inaccuracy of your contention to that person on my post, I scanned a document I have which has 2 different embossed seals on it. I scanned it in color and again in gray-scale, and both embossed seals register in excellent detail. I scanned from the back side of the document, so the text is reversed, but with 2 or 3 clicks of magnification you can even read the text of the seals. I would be curious to see a full-document version of the photo you present here with the e vidence of a seal your process “revealed”.
And also out of curiosity, why did your “process” not reveal the fold lines which did not appear on the first version but were on the second? Of course I’m not assuming that oyu would suggest that the fold lines didn’t register in the scan for the same reason the embossed seal didn’t.
If you care to forward the photo and any explanation you have conserning the fold lines and my success in having embossed seals register when you claim they will not, then you can respond to my email address. I’m not terribly concerned with whether you do or not though. My main purpose, as stated, was to post a refutation of your claim concerning embossed seals. I have no doubt that you would credit me with no more credibility than I credit your claims, and that’s fine. Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, and no one is required to predicate their opinion on substance….unless, perhaps, they’re being paid for it.
Also, in reference to the certificate numbers on the document, this particular form, the CERTIFICATION of Live Birth, did not exist before 1980. One failed explanation for the sequential disparity was that whoever filled the form in just happened to grab one out of sequence. But the Certification form is NOT a blank paper form, according to what I have read. It is entirely generated with common fields AND specific information being generated at the same time. Thus, no one could have selected a blank form with an out of sequence certificate number. Also, I believe there is relevance in whether the certificate number is extracted from some other pre-existing document, or if it is generated by the computer when the COLB is first generated. If it derives from the number on another document, such as a full, long-form birth certificate, then the question suggested by someone here applies….Why would Obama’s ORIGINAL, full birth certificate have ALSO had a number out of sequence compared to the number on Mrs. Nordyke’s original certificate? On the other hand, if the certificate number is generated ON DEMAND (when first requested/generated), then why would a computer on June 6, 2007, have issued a number appropriate to this general week in 1961?
I most likely will not come back here….my purpose has been accomplished. Anyone who may wish to contact me may do so at this site though:
https://feed.examiner.com/examiner/admin/reportingController.cfm?action=list
My point is that based on the clustering of the numbers, coupled with the fact that the babies were born on August 4th & 5th, and Obama’s certificate was filed on August 8th — the file numbers must have been issued at about the same time. The mechanism doesn’t really matter – the point is, the file numbers were issued, and if the Health Dept was the issuing agency, then the issuance would have had to take place on either Aug. 7th or Aug. 8th. (I’m assuming that the DOH office was closed over the weekend, since my experience with gov. offices is that they usually are open only on weekdays).
Now maybe there’s a simple explanation — the Nordyke certificates could be an anomaly. Maybe they were filed with DOH along with Obama’s certificate on the 8th, but then some significant error in the records were noted on the twins’ certificate – so the paperwork had to be re-issued and re-signed — that would explain the delay to Aug. 11th. Mistakes are sometimes noted on documents after they are filed. So the question might be: if a serious error was discovered on a filed document — how would they go about remedying it?
However, I had theorized a system whereby a number was issued ahead of receipt of the document — perhaps through a phone call. You found that strange — I don’t know anything about vital stats — but I do know that police incident numbers get issued that way. That is–when a police officer is on the scene taking a report, s/he will call in to get an incident number assigned, and then later when the report is filed, it is under that incident number. That incident number can also be given to the person reporting the crime, for later reference (often needed for insurance purposes).
So I had just speculated a similar procedure with hospital birth records. The advantage of that system would be for tracking purposes — that is, the hospital would be able to enter a certificate number in its records ahead of filing, and it might improve the process of document tracking. With an average of 48 births per day, its easy to see how documents could slip through the cracks — and some uncompleted certificate ends up sitting up on desk somewhere instead of being transmitted to the health dept. If, however, a certificate number is assigned out the outset and recorded in a ledger in the health dept — then the basic fact of the birth has been recorded promptly, and you’ve got a system of checks and balances to make sure that paperwork is filed at an appropriate time.
Keep in mind that Okobu’s statement does not exclude this possibility. She said, the date filed is “the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of Oahu) ” ; and, with reference to islands other than Oahu, “the paper record would then need to be sent to Oahu to have a file number placed on it, and the filed date would then be sometime later”.
Placement of a file number on a document doesn’t mean that the file number had not previously been assigned. So you can have the number assigned (and noted in some sort of ledger) — and then when the birth certificate arrives in the main office, the clerk checks the ledger by reference to the name and date of birth — and then places the pre-assigned tracking number on the actual, completed certificate.
Nordyke twins’ certificates were signed by the attending physician on August 11,1961. You can see it on the document. The certificate was processed at the DoH office the same day. Registrar’s signature and date stamp are clearly visible.
Obama’s certificate was processed by the DoH on August 8, 1961. The newspaper birth announcements confirm that Obama’s birth was registered earlier. Nordyke birth announcements were printed in the newspapers several days later than Obama’s.
Possible scenarios that could explain issuing of number 10641 for Obama:
a) the stamping machine was not available on August 8
b) the clerk handling his paperwork got sloppy/distracted/had an emergency (pick one) so the number assignment was not completed on August 8. It had to wait for 3 days and the number was stamped on Obama’s certificate on August 11 (the number is very close to those issued to Nordyke twins on that date)
So we have a plausible scenario that could explain the certificate number.
What bothers me is the behavior of Hawaii DoH. They would not confirm that this number indeed belongs to Obama. UIPA law requests for index data were ignored when the certificate number was included into the question. That is not a reasonable behavior.
A request for index data for a person named Jim Smith or some other common name is useless without specifying the registration number. In addition, since it was the Obama campaign that published this number to public – there would be no violation of privacy by the DoH if they confirmed that number indeed belonged to Obama.
It does not make sense that Dr. Fukino can go public with the statement that Obama was born in Hawaii yet she would not confirm that the COLB was issued to him on June 6, 2007. Something is not right with the COLB presented to the public. Otherwise Fukino would have confirmed it.
OK, trust a foreigner to come up with a stupid idea to explain it the numbers, but an idea nevertheless. This idea suggests that the heap of birth registrations arriving at the DOH is never really sorted according to time of birth. The list of births for the newspaper is filled in according to the moment when they arrive from the hospitals. On August 8, the birth certificates are handed over to the office’s “statistician”, who every two days makes a hand count of births according to race and sex of the child; They did not do this kind of count by computer at the end of the month in those days, remember?
To help with the count, (s)he classifies the papers (s)he received, first according to race and then according to sex. (no reason to classify according to time of birth, if they are all August births) While classifying, most births of August 4 and August 5 get included in the heap, and form the majority of papers in that heap. Just after finalizing the list of births for the local papers, on August 11, late registrations arrive, among whom the August 5 birth of the Nordyke twins. This paper is then put in its “proper” place at the end of the female births part of the statistically “processed” August 4/5 heap and this birth is put on the new list for the papers, so it is not among the births advertised on August 13-14, but the hand count is changed to include them (the Nordykes were not the only “late” August 5 birth). And then the heap goes to the clerk who does the stamping; With a series of female births of August 5 just before a series of male births of August 4. Since the Nordykes’ certificate is now stamped, there is no danger that they will be included in the hand count a second time. As a last precaution, the last stamp number is communicated to the office statistician; who checks with the last but one stamp number to see whether his/her total for that heap was correct.
@nc1 –
Your questions have been asked and answered dozens of times at other sites. Just because you’ve switched venues and tweaked your handle does not mean that your will get another answer to your disingenuous questions.
I have objections to this scenario, based on the typography of the Nordyke certificate image. The certificate number digits are not precisely vertically aligned. It would seem to me that if a clerk were applying a certificate number from a ledger, they would type it. Rather we see something like an old “odometer”, or a numbering machine. Numbering machines insure that numbers are assigned sequentially and that they are never duplicated through clerical error. Humans cannot type numbers without making an occasional error.
From my personal knowledge that some state vital statistics agencies were using numbering machines 20 years ago, and the visual appearance of numbers on Hawaii images, I am confident that a single numbering machine applied all the certificate numbers to Hawaiian certificates within an era. If this is agreed, then the only two options are that the forms are numbered before they are sent to the hospital, or after they are received from the hospital.
The example you gave of a police report shows the situation where it is necessary to call to get a number, because the number has to be issued to a third party on the spot. However that process takes extra time, and they wouldn’t do it unless it was necessary. Vital statistics doesn’t have this requirement.
Let me add another possible explanation for the certificate number that came to mind when reading the Alvin D Ambers comment. That possibility is that the certificate number on the COLB is wrong due to an error in transcription from the original document to the computer. If someone typed a “9” for a “0” (just as been suggested to explain the Connecticut SSN). I think this very unlikely, but (depending on the design of the computer system) possible.
The number you see on the COLB is called the “State File Number” in the industry. It is almost certainly extracted from the source document. On some birth certificates, there is an additional document serial number, like the serial number on currency, but that’s not what we have here.
Just a clarification. The image of my birth certificate on the site is not a photo, but a scanned image. When I used the photo processing software (in the same way that I did on the Obama certificate) on my scanned certificate image, I was not able to reveal the seal at all. I suppose I could photograph my certificate on edge so that the seal is visible, but this wouldn’t answer your objection, since you could just claim I added the seal after I scanned it.
No, I wouldn’t suggest that anyone is paying you to come over here and comment.
I have to ask what document did you scan and do you have a link to the photos?
In New York State, relatives of the deceased and “non-relatives who are able to establish a right to the death certificate by providing documentation, are entitled to receive a certified copy.” Non-relatives who have a right to a death certificate would include a life insurance company, the deceased’s bank, the executor of the deceased’s will, the deceased’s attorney, etc. Reporters have no right to see someone’s death certificate, so no reporter is going to be able to legally obtain a copy of the death certificates for Obama’s mother and grandmother.
Here’s another theory.
Nordyke: N
Obama: O
N is before O
So, you take the ones filed for a time period (say a week), and alphabetize them, and then assign them numbers based upon their letter, then organized by name. The difference on the filed date, is that the certificate is dated when it is taken in hand.
I hate to quote myself but …
There are many valid reasons for the numbers not being in a tidy perfect sequence based on time of the birth in the paper record era. We may know the answer someday or we may not. I suppose now I need to call the state of my birth and demand to see the birth certificates of those on either side of my number to make sure I am not an out of sequence person. I am not sure I could live with that stigma.
You are assuming an automated machine, that increments by itself each time it is used.
I was thinking of a stamp with rotors that can be hand set – like this – http://content.etilize.com/Large/1010043636.jpg or http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s209/mjand23/Colop/ShinyDater/Shiny8NumberStamp2.jpg
i don’t doubt that you could have scanned a document and picked up the embossing. nor do i doubt that doc scanned his document in and did not pick up the embossing ( or folds or other imperfections ). if you’ve done any scanning for pro reproductions then you’d know the multitude of variations that can occur in scanning. resolution is the most obvious that comes to mind but……… contrast levels, color profile, calibration, connection, program, individual computer, individual scanner and more can all have an effect on a scan. even the weight of/on the scanner door will influence the scan.
the part i have trouble with is:
if you were going to fake a hawaiian 2007 COLB just for an online image then you’d want to start with a scan of an existing hawaiian 2007 COLB and work over it. path of least resistance.
I see it, but it’s hard to think of a situation where one would want to use such a thing. Rubber stamps fit the situation where the same thing has to be stamped over and over again (like a date stamp). A state file number, by definition, is used only once. Rubber stamps are time consuming to set up, and error prone–you just about have to stamp a blank piece of paper to make sure it’s right.
Compare the rubber date stamp at the bottom of the Nordyke form with the certificate number to see how different they look.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)….
Of course I saved the images of the document I scanned. It was a real-estate purshase agreement from 1992. I haven’t posted them anywhere, but I’d be happy to email them to you. Go to my examiner.com website, Bowling Green Conservative Examiner and leave me your email address.
Dr. Conspiracy 17. Jun, 2010 at 7:47 am Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) # Alvin D Ambers: I would be curious to see a full-document version of the photo you present here with the evidence of a seal your process “revealed”.
Just a clarification. The image of my birth certificate on the site is not a photo, but a scanned image. When I used the photo processing software (in the same way that I did on the Obama certificate) on my scanned certificate image, I was not able to reveal the seal at all. I suppose I could photograph my certificate on edge so that the seal is visible, but this wouldn’t answer your objection, since you could just claim I added the seal after I scanned it.
Everyone’s entitled to an opinion, and no one is required to predicate their opinion on substance….unless, perhaps, they’re being paid for it.
No, I wouldn’t suggest that anyone is paying you to come over here and comment.
Dr. Conspiracy….I wasn’t speaking of myself in any manner. It was simply a statement of reasonable fact that anyone and everyone here, including you, can express their opinions regardless of their veracity because (presumably) none of us are professionals who are being paid for their opinions. Perhaps Dan Rather would have been well-advised to consider that before he gleefully reported on George Bush’s “false claims” regarding his National Guard service. If he had, maybe Dan would still have his paid professional job.
I’ll reiterate that my purpose was to refute your claim that embossed seals will not register in a digital scan. A claim that you did not qualify with exceptions, but issued as a general, blanket statement.
I don’t know what “birth certificate” you’re referring to as not being a photo, but a scanned image. The only image that I saw and which I specifically addressed is the portion of Obama’s presumed COLB, on which you claim to have revealed a partial image of an embossed seal. Your statements here make no sense. Either you copied the document from online just as I did and used your photo-editing software to “treat” that image and reveal the seal image, or you’re suggesting that you have the actual paper Obama document. What else would you be referring to as you could “photograph my certificate on edge so that the seal is visible”? Does that not necessitate that you’re looking at the physical Obama document with an embossed seal? If not, and you’re talking about some other document, then that’s totally irrelevant.
You said you always thought you could see the seal image on the document as it appeared online. I see no such evidence of an image what-so-ever, regardless of how much I magnify the image, nor do I see any evidence at all of fold lines. As I understood your original statements, you’re claiming that you downloaded the Obama document
just as I did, opened it in your photo-editing software, applied some effects, and produced the partial ink-like image above. You maintain this as proof that the embossed seal is on the document, and you state unequivocally that embossed seals will not register in a scan. Where the partial image of a seal came from on what you posted here I have no idea, and any speculation could not be helped from sounding like an accusation that you manufactured it. I don’t need to do that….I am merely stating that your claims regarding scans of embossed seals not registering and the reasons you suggest as to why are absolutely inaccurate, even if anecdotal to your circumstance. I state this based on my simple scan of a document with such a seal, in a common-place Hewlett-Packard all-in-one device, which registered an entirely visible and legible image of the seal.
BatGuano
It has been speculated that the COLB posted and claimed as Obama’s was an altered version of his sister’s. I don’t know about that, but as a COLB indisputably is a computer generated document, why would it seem an outlandish possibility that someone generated one for Obama to use? The rubber stamp that would be used to stamp an issue date on the back would probably be readily available on perhaps several desks in an office, whereas the embossed seal device would be much more difficult to access. Dr. Conspiracy here is quick to imbue his photo-editing efforts with credibility, but doubltess disdains “tech dude’s” far more extensive examination. I have read and considered his analysis, and it’s at least as credible as Dr. Conspiracy’s.
But as I have addressed opinions, my contention basically is that there are MORE than adequate questions regarding this document and Obama’s eligibility. I want the PAPER documents produced and examined by a panel of diverse and “impartial” professionals as is possible. And for those who insist that I “have no right to demand Obama prove his eligibility”, I would say that as an American citizen I absolutely DO have a right to know if Obama or any other oifficial is who they claim to be and is eligible to the office concerned.
Alvin D Ambers: I would say that as an American citizen I absolutely DO have a right to know if Obama or any other oifficial is who they claim to be and is eligible to the office concerned.
Like Shrub, who lost the 2000 election, but was installed by the Supreme Court? Does a misdemeanor conviction preclude someone from the presidency?
I don’t know, but what would have happened if two days before the election, Barack Obama was exposed as having a misdemeanor conviction?
You guys are unbelieveable.
Now where oh where and by who have we heard this little ditty of “impartial” professionals before……Guess what, posting the same cack under a different name doesn’t change the responses.
Oh and if you have forgotten from your childhood….”I WANT, never gets”
*waaaah*
Too bad none of our nation’s laws agree with you.
Alvin D Ambers: I would say that as an American citizen I absolutely DO have a right to know if Obama or any other oifficial is who they claim to be and is eligible to the office concerned.
I suggest you fly to Honolulu, and vist them at 1250 Punchbowl Street, 808-586-4400.
Let me know how it turns out.
Why not post them publicly so everyone on this site can see them
No the problem with Dan Rather is he didn’t get the documents authenticated. They couldn’t be authenticated one way or the other as they were copies of copies. However, Killian’s own secretary vouched for the veracity of the claims in the documents stating thats how her boss felt. There’s also the fact that there is still a missing year in the Bush Guard documents. Stuff that should be there is missing including the hearing results when he was grounded from flying. George W. Bush’s campaign staff even said some of the documents had been inadvertantly destroyed
in this scenario the original source material would have had the seal on it. so either the scan didn’t pick it up or somebody went to the extra trouble of deleting it for no reason.
from a graphics point of view it’s fun to speculate on how you could forge it but…… after the confirmation photos of factcheck, the statements from the hawaiian DOH and the discovery of the newspaper announcements the forgery conspiracy became a moot point.
“I would say that as an American citizen I absolutely DO have a right to know if Obama or any other oifficial is who they claim to be and is eligible to the office concerned.”
As an American citizen, I have the right to say that President Obama proved his eligibility to my satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of 69 million voters. Why should your doubts trump our lack of doubts?
Should the President respond to every individual citizen’s demands? And when that citizen is not satisified, regardless of the evidence? It would be chaos, it would be anarchy.
Ask these questions prior to the election. If there is substance the electoral campaign process will push them to the front.
Agreed. It amazes me that birthers constantly try to resurrect such long-dead horses.
In this particular situation, it is even more pathetic and moldy – even the zombie of this long dead-horse has been thoroughly killed and shot in the head. Yet they still try to drag it out and play around in its decomposed entrails again.
Very well said, SFJeff, so much so that it truly bears repeating. I agree completely.
As an American citizen, I absolutely have a right to ask Scarlett Johansenn to go out on a date with me. I have the exact same right to ask her for a date as you do to demand that Obama show you his birth certificate.
If Scarlett doesn’t go out with me, I have a right not to go see her movies. You have a right not to vote for Obama.
That’s it. That’s the extent of your right.
If you were John McCain, and you could put forward a plausible claim that Obama cheated you out of the Presidency, then you might have the right to present credible evidence that Obama was ineligible. Even then, you don’t have the right to haul Obama into court to assuage every fanciful doubt you can dream up!
Let me clear this up.
The “green” certificate is the scanned image of Obama’s birth certificate from the Daily KOS web site. I used the program on a portion of this image to bring out a partial imprint of a seal.
I also (in another article) showed a scanned image of my own birth certificate (which is pink) which has an embossed seal which is not visible in the scan.
So I make two assertions based on these two experiments: It is possible that a document with an embossed seal can be scanned without leaving a visible image of the seal. It is possible to process the published Obama certificate from June 2008 and reveal a faint partial seal.
From these two data points, I assert that there is no reason to conclude that the Daily KOS scan of Obama’s COLB lacks a seal.
But that is a pretty silly speculation, given that Obama’s half-sister was born in Indonesia, not Hawaii.
Oh but, they say, she could have gotten one anyway under the law allowing out-of-state registrations. But she couldn’t because that law only applies to parents who were residents of Hawaii for the year preceding the birth (which they weren’t).
Not if you’re married you don’t
Greg: As an American citizen, I absolutely have a right to ask Scarlett Johansenn to go out on a date with me.
My wife would kill me.
Wonderfully put, if a little gross and disgusting.
…And aptly fitting, since many of the birther myths, slander and other sick fantasies easily fit under such a description.
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)
I don’t use photo-bucket and I don’t use any of the various “post to web” facilities for my photography. You are the only one who has expressed any curiosity at all to see a demonstration that what Dr. Conspiracy claimed is irrefutably untrue. I explained that the only reason I came to this web-site was because someone in another venue used Dr. Conspiracy’s claims in an effort to refute MY thread on that web-site. Liberals and other species of Obama supporters misrepresent my contentions by claiming that I suggest that I have proof of Obama’s ineligibility. The fact of the matter is that neither I, nor Dr. Conspiracy, nor anyone else in the general public has any “proof” from which to substantiate their particular position. The difference is that I am ASKING for proof, and while I indeed have suspicions and even convictions, I have far more evidence to base my suspicions and convictions on, even if it IS mainly circumstantial, than Liberals (et al) have to support THEIR position. All they have besides this COLB is “Obama’s word”. Or, actually, the word of several other people who presumably SPEAK for Obama. He himself has not said a single word about it.
Then there are the imbeciles who equate the laws applicable to elected officials with the meaningless right to date some celebrity.
But I digress….
Again, I came here for the purpose iterated, which I have accomplished. I most certainly didn’t expect anything beyond an obtuse manifestation of intellectual and academic acumen from a herd of Obamasheep….as is evidenced by such statements as verification by “factcheck”. There was a circle-jerk of Obama’s web-site, factcheck, and Snopes all verifiying each other. So again, I expected no objectivity here, and got exactly what I expected. I don’t think anyone here, including Dr. Conspiracy, would consider anything objectively if it didn’t fit the narrative, and I’m not going to waste my time on the willingly naive….or worse, more anti-American ideologues.
Since you asked, I do have one of the scans posted as a default photo on my MyYearbook profile. If you want to see it, you can go there and search “Alvin”….it should be apparent which Alvin I am by the default photo.
Oh, as a parting shot at the Nimrods here, it is the contention of Liberals that Americans do not have a right to question “authority”. That’s why they are Communists/Socialists/Marxists and not loyal Americans….they don’t believe in Constitutional rights and Law.
Dr Conspiracy
I didn’t read any other threads or posts so didn’t see your personal birth certificate. If there was anything on Obama’s COLB, any causative accounting of it that I might speculate on would be just as valid as your assumption that your partial, illegible image was an embossed seal on an original paper document. To someone without even a cursory acquaintance with photoshop editing, your revelation process could sound like alchemy. I might lend it more credibility if it hadn’t been for your statement that you “always thought you could see it (the seal)” when there is no evidence of it at all. I would say it suggests to me how much you WANTED it to be there.
But again, I demonstrated your claim that embossed seals will not register to be inaccurate, and I presented that refutation in a civilized manner, with intellectual and academic integrity. That’s all I intended to do, and I have no interest in how you and your following here may characterize me and the growing number of people who think Obama is a GENERAL fraud. I’m content that the person who referenced your blog here in an attempt to refute my post won’t be so quick in the future to assume that your claims are absolutely true. In the war of demonstrable facts and truth, I expect him to concede this battle to me. My “mission” was accomplished.
Be well.
Alvin D Ambers: That’s why they are Communists/Socialists/Marxists
Why, thank you. As someone who was a kibbutznik, I want to proudly proclaim my willful participation in a collective.
From each according to his ability; to each, according to his need.
Glad to meet you, comrade!
You are wrong of course, embossed seals do not necessarily register accurately when scanned, as Obama’s COLB shows. Only through careful manipulation of image settings can the original COLB be shown.
The same applies to the seal on Dr C’s own birth certificate, with the problem that so far I have not been able to find the seal.
In other words, you are wrong. To call your effort ‘intellectual’ is in my humble opinion an affront to the meaning of the word.
Alvin is now confusing with ‘seals do not always show up when scanned’ with ‘sometimes seals can be detected in scans’.
As to the folds, there is an inside and outside fold and one is more visible than the other because the paper is ‘stretched’.
Hope this helps..
You are confusing two different issues. The numbers are generated when the document is filed.
GEez…. If this is ‘intellectual’ then I am a chipmunk
The birth certificate is a scanned image and not a photo. It’s that simple. And one uses image editing software which some may refer to under the popular but less exact name as photo-editing software.
Dr C is right however, despite the claims by some that the COLB does not contain a seal, the actual evidence contradicts this.
bummer… but par for the course for birthers.
Ambers, it is sad how much you have to fluff yourself up in your own posts to try to convince yourself. I find that particularly telling. Heck, when you can’t deal with reality, tell yourself that you are right and amazing and the rest of the world that thinks you are crazy…well, they are all just evil people in on some big, bad conspiracy plot against the “righteous crusaders” such as yourself. ***waaaahhh****
I guess whatever helps your sad, fear & hate based self sleep at night…
No, you aren’t searching for truth. All you want is to validate your own pre-conceived suspicions and convictions. Which are based on fear & hate, obviously. And that is quite frankly sad.
It is completely laughable that you think your personal “beliefs” somehow magically trump actual evidence in reality.
You just don’t like the president, for whatever lame reason and that is why you cling desperately to birther myths…which is all you’ve got.
Meanwhile, the COLB is backed by everyone who in official capacity matters in the state of HI and clearly states born in Honolulu, HI. That and 0-70 court cases. All that and 2 separate birth announcement newspaper articles from 1961….so yeah, in reality, that’s a mountain of credible & corroborating evidence that trumps your little personal hurt feelings.
It just burns you folks up that Obama doesn’t care to deal with you vapid birthers, nor does he need to and there is nothing you can do about it. The laws are not on your side. Tough. Time to grow up. In 2.5 years, you can cast your vote again for whomever you want. However, if the majority of voters disagree with you again – hey, that’s life and how the system works. Deal with it.
Ah, when things don’t go your way, you just resort to cheap, poo-flinging insults and run away. Such is the tactic of those that don’t have anything to back them up.
Hate to tell ya, but from where most of us stand, the only anti-American attitudes we see are those that disrespect our elections process, vastly misinterpret the Constitution, defame the President of our country and his family, sickly twist what actual patriotism is all about
and seem to want this great country of ours to fail. Hint – I’m talking about you birthers and those like you.
Again, more false tropes to make yourself feel better. No one here said anything against questioning authority in general. We’re just against unsupported mindless conspiracy nuttery and seditious talk, which is all you folks seem to bring to the table.
There is a big difference between asking serious questions and just having a tantrum pout-fest when you don’t like the answers you find. All you folks have are tantrums and you chose to close your eyes to reality and pretend to live in some sort of twisted fantasy world. Too bad. I’ve got no sympathy for your misplaced little hurt feelings.
LMAO! Yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Bold claims for someone who failed to succeed at anything here and tries to come off trash-talking tough as you slink off with your tail between your legs. …Don’t let the door hit you on the way out
Alvin you have suspicions not evidence. The COLB is verified by State Officials. You have seen more to confirm Obama’s birth in the US than you’ve seen of any other president. When was the last time you saw Reagan’s certificate? How about Bush Sr or Jr? You’re not a growing number you’re an echo chamber. You think that the same people repeating the same things over and over again more loudly and beligerently somehow equals more people believing your cause.
If you’ve done what you said then prove it post your proof otherwise you’re just blowing off hot air.
Anyone who uses the terms socialists/communists/marxist interchangeably obviously don’t know what those words mean. Especially when you use it on people who disagree with you. You’ve accomplished nothing here but making yourself look like a royal ass.
Hmmm Chipmunk… alvin…. chipmunk… ahhh