Here we continue the analysis of a A Catalog of Evidence – Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii by attorney Mario Apuzzo. We’re adding up the value of the items in his catalog picking up from Birther math Part 4.
So far our total is zero. Parts 1 and 2 summed a compendium of non-specific statements from people who had no reason to know what Apuzzo would lead us to think they said. Part 3 covered primarily innuendo based on the lack of evidence. Part 4 features innuendo about Obama’s birth certificate, plus the unsubstantiated claim that some unnamed expert says that it’s a forgery. Nothing he has presented so far would be admissible as evidence in court except possibly the Indonesian school registration (properly attested). The rest at best it is hearsay, and at worst outright misrepresentation.
Let’s move on to item 21.
(21) In 1961 it was not very difficult for a family member to defraud the State of Hawaii by registering and claiming a child was born there when he or she was not and obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate. Birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii and other areas as this recent article attests.;
While Apuzzo claims “birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii” he gives no support of this statement beyond a report that does not single out Hawaii as being a hot bed of vital statistics fraud. The Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General’s report is a more comprehensive survey of the problem. We know that Barack Obama’s birth was registered a scan 4 days following his birth, ruling out a delayed registration, one of the areas where fraud happens more often. There is no argument offered by Apuzzo that Barack Obama was any more likely to have a fraudulently registered birth than any other American. No points for no evidence.
Score: 0.
(22) A newspaper birth announcement from local Honolulu newspapers was simply a confirmation that the Honolulu health department “registered” a birth as occurring there based on what someone told them. Given Hawaii’s very lax birth registration laws in 1961…
The newspaper announcement does indeed confirm that Barack Obama’s birth was registered and accepted by the Department of Health in 1961. Apuzzo assumes facts not in evidence when he defames the State of Hawaii with an unfounded claim that they had “very lax birth registration laws.” This claim plays on the ignorance of the reader about how vital statistics registration works in the country as a whole. This is one of Apuzzo’s more offensive smears. The Certification of Live Birth is prima facie evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, valid in any court in the United States, no matter how much sand Apuzzo raises. The reason we register births in this country is to prevent the need to investigate 50-year-old events.
Score: 0. (this one deserves a minus score)
(23) The proffered online image of the Certification of Live Birth (COLB) put on the internet states in the lower left corner a date of “Filing” the birth registration. It does not state that the birth registration was “Accepted.” Computer generated COLBs obtained for other people registered in Hawaii have the word and date “Accepted” in that field….
And other birth registrations on the Internet, like the COLB of President Obama say “filed”.” Hawaii Department of Health spokesperson Janice Okubo stated that the certificates where first accepted and then filed. This means that Obama’s certificate which is filed was previously accepted. The “Filed” language is the preferred term because the US Department of State web site description of a valid birth certificate for passport purposes states that it must be “filed…within one year”. Okubo said:
Historically, most often the “date accepted” and the “date filed” is the same date as the majority of births occur on O‘ahu (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 O‘ahu, such as Kaua‘i. The paper record would then need to be sent to O‘ahu to have a file number placed on it, and the filed date would then be sometime later (as you know, the state of Hawai‘i 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.
Score: 0.
(24) There is no public drive to commemorate Obama’s place of birth. This is even more suspect given that so many people are questioning his place of birth.
Usually things like this happen after a president leaves office. I don’t personally recall a statue erected at any president’s birth place when he’d been in office less than two years. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Score: 0.
(25) No government, political (including the Federal Election Commission), security, or police agency or media entity has confirmed for the American people that Obama was born in Honolulu. These official agencies simply assumed that everyone else did their due diligence on the question of where Obama was born
Apuzzo provides no evidence that this statement is true. We do know that some states (e.g. Hawaii) received sworn statements from the Democratic Party that Obama was eligible. The Federal Election Commission has no responsibility to verify any candidate’s eligibility. But again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Apuzzo’s claim should it prove true might be an argument that greater care should be taken in vetting candidates for office, but it has no bearing whatever on whether Barack Obama was eligible or not. The State of Hawaii says Obama was born there, and so there’s no need for concern this time around.
Score: 0.
In this section we see example of unsupported assertions, and the twisting of normal things to sound sinister. That’s what lawyers are trained to do, create doubt. Stay tuned for Part 6.
Here is Charles Kerchner’s take on Obama’s birth:
CDR. KERCHNER: I believe his parents are who he says they are, but I don’t believe his birth date is necessarily true. I think he was likely born in Kenya; the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he was born in Kenya and his birth registered in Hawaii by his grandmother who could have illegally and fraudulently used a mail-in form to register “at home” births. I think his birth date is probably in July in Kenya, which would have allowed more time for the mother to come back to Seattle directly where she started college, or perhaps, via Canada. I don’t believe she actually returned to Hawaii. I think she was sent to Kenya as a pregnant teenager, as in those days, they used to go away and have the child and put the child up for adoption and re-start their life. I think she was sent to Kenya perhaps late in her second trimester to have the child and leave the child there in the custody of the paternal family to be raised there.
MRS. RONDEAU: That is something I have not heard. What causes you to believe that?
CDR. KERCHNER: It explains the statements of the paternal grandmother in Kenya that she was there when the child was born. Also, other Obama Sr. family members say they were there at the hospital when Obama II was born in the hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.
MRS. RONDEAU: So you think that her original plan was to leave the baby there?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, and come back to college and start a new life. This is the scenario which fits the most facts. Now what could have happened, in my opinion, is that she returned from Canada (I think she went to Kenya and back via Canada because it was a British commonwealth country at the time; it was easy to get to Kenya from Canada and vice versa, because she would have been traveling as the wife of a British subject), and coming back, she just had to take the birth certificate from the Mombasa Hospital to the embassy over there in Kenya and say, “My baby was born here and I want to come home with my baby,” and they would have stamped it as a child of an American citizen, and she returned to Canada and crossed the border into the United States. Then she could have told her mother, “Mom, I couldn’t leave the baby there,” and Grandma says, “What are we going to do? We have to get this baby U.S. citizenship.”
So she could have then filed the mail-in form using the date that she found out about the baby’s return to the U.S. as the date of birth. She could have filed it in the Hawaii Health Department with a mail-in form. However, it appears they didn’t in the end finally accept it. Did you notice that on the form, it says “Filed” but not “Accepted”?
MRS. RONDEAU: Yes, I did. So would that have meant that it was incomplete? Could the Health Department have received it and not known what to do with it?
CDR. KERCHNER: They could have received it in the mail or the grandmother could have dropped it off at their office, but when the processors several days later looked at it, they said, “Well, we need more evidence here than just the signature of one relative.” Maybe Grandma Dunham forged the daughter’s signature, too, because I don’t think Stanley Ann was in Hawaii then. There is no record of her being there at that time. During the period of time when he was allegedly born there, there is no record of any hospital or doctor having any records on the baby or Stanley Ann being there. Tim Adams, the new fellow who just came forward, confirms that. So she could have “filed” it, and they probably sent a request back to Grandma Dunham as the “filer” a couple of weeks later saying that they needed to have a midwife’s statement or the name of a paramedic who was called to the scene, or a neighbor who might have witnessed that there was a lot of noise and commotion there “at home” during the birthing process, because a 17- or 18-year-old-girl giving birth the first time is not an easy event. It would seem if somebody had known that something was going on, they would have called paramedics or someone, or driven her to the hospital. To just say that he was born at home with no witnesses is not plausible.
MRS. RONDEAU: It makes one wonder, where was the mother? Why wouldn’t the mother have gone in to the Health Department and applied for a birth certificate?
CDR. KERCHNER: I believe the reason she didn’t herself is that she was not in Hawaii in August 1961. I believe Grandma Dunham falsely and illegally filed the registration form declaring Obama was born at home with no independent witnesses. She may have likely also forged her daughter’s signature on the birth registration form. Grandma Dunham did this for the purpose of illegally getting her new grandson U.S. Citizenship. Birth registration fraud was easy given Hawaii’s lax laws in 1961. And, the simple filing of the birth registration triggered those birth announcements, because the Health Department Statistics Office gave that list out every week. So the simple filing of the birth registration, fraudulent or otherwise, got the name on the list for publication in the newspapers.
MRS. RONDEAU: Even if the filing was not complete?
CDR. KERCHNER: Yes, even if it was never accepted in the end, it was already published in the paper within days of the birth if any filings were listed there. They didn’t investigate immediately. There was a process it had to go through. But the simple filing of the registration of birth triggered the state to place the child’s name of the list of births registered with the state that week.
MRS. RONDEAU: Do you have any idea as to why Stanley Ann might have decided to keep the baby if originally she had planned to leave him in Kenya?
CDR. KERCHNER: I believe maternal instincts kicked in. Did you read the statements of the woman who befriended her in Seattle? Apparently she didn’t even know how to diaper the baby properly and things like that. She needed training. So I think she came directly back from Kenya via Canada or from Kenya directly to Seattle with a baby who was three or four weeks old at that point since I believe Obama’s real birth date was not in August, but likely earlier, possibly July, and she was just learning how to take care of him.
MRS. RONDEAU: There might have been no one to show her, because it doesn’t appear that she was living with her parents at the time.
CDR. KERCHNER: Well, I think when she decided to go home to the U.S. with the baby, the family over in Kenya was upset with her probably saying, “Oh, no, no; this is what we agreed to! You’ve been living here now for three or four months, and you were supposed to give up the baby!” While she was in Kenya with the new born the family there probably helped out with the initial care of the baby.
MRS. RONDEAU: I have read some accounts which say that there was no evidence that Stanley Ann was in Hawaii even months before Obama’s birth.
CDR. KERCHNER: That’s right. So when you ask if there’s anything that I believe about Obama, there’s not much that I believe in the way of factual things, including his birth date.
You’re not the sharpest pencil in the box, are you? Either that or you’re one of those benighted souls who’s motivation for hating Obama is a self-evident thing we don’t talk about.
Why do you think anyone cares about some unqualified, loser psycho like Kerchner offering his rambling speculations about what could have happened fifty years ago regarding events of which he has no actual knowledge at all? I coud sit and speculate some very unattractive things about you and your mental outlook, of which i do have some knowledge from your own posts, but it still wouldn’t be actual evidence of anything.
Here’s the US judicial system’s take on James and his hero, disgraced former officer Charles Kerchner:
Fail. The President is still an uppity negro.
And ’round ‘n ’round they go but Obama’s still Presidentin’.
This one is very ludicrous. The president is still in office, however Hawaii expressed interest in having the presidential library in that state. Sometimes it is best to tap birthers on the shoulder to wake them up, but listening to their arguments is sometimes funny.
As my building’s employee said, “no white man was ever asked to show his birth certificate.”
And I’m Jewish.
Dayenu!
James seems to quote some interesting people. It is hard to understand why James would quote a person using false arguments. It could like many birthers he believes that just one false argument not rebutted makes it true.
The interesting thing in quote is the Kerchner has significant discrepancies in the time lines he made up. James just seemed to cut and paste without checking. There is absolutely nothing in Kercher’s statements that make any sense.
Here is Charles Kerchner’s take on Obama’s birth:
CDR. KERCHNER: I believe his parents are who he says they are, but I don’t believe his birth date is necessarily true.
stop. proof ?
“CDR. KERCHNER: I believe his parents are who he says they are, but I don’t believe his birth date is necessarily true.”
And Kerchner rammed a cornflower colored crayon deep up his nose at age 11.
He has never been able to distinguish fantasy from reality since.
Proof? Obviously not necessary.
A Jewish man goes to Spain for a vacation. Everyone tells him he has to go to a bullfight. He goes to an arena, and walks to the back. A man in an elaborate costume says to the doorkeeper “toreador,” and he’s let in.
A man in a more elaborate costume says to the doorkeeper “matador,” and he’s let in.
The Jewish man walks up to the doorkeeper and says, “Isadore.” The doorkeeper replies, “Izzy, was machst du?”
I thought in Russia, Waldo finds you?
I’m no Isaac Bashevis but you are a singer.
Dr. Conspiracy
1. In your response to item (23) could you provide a link to Okubo’s statement about the use of different phrases?
In addition, could you explain to your readers the theory behind the registration number 10641 being assigned to Obama (his COLB was filed on August 8), while numbers 10637 and 10638 were assigned to Nordyke twins on August 11 (three days after Obama’s COLB was processed).
2. We are talking about a remote island far from the Honolulu office in the pre-electronic document age – Okubo describes the following process: The local registrar Accepted the registration form, mailed it to the main office in Honolulu where the registration number was stamped on the form and the registration was Filed by the State registrar.
Therefore, logical phrases to use in this process would be different from Okubo’s explanation: I would expect that the first date would be associated with the phrase “Date Accepted by Registrar” while the second date would be associated with the phrase “Date Filed by State Registrar”.
What am I missing here?
3. Is there a quote from Okubo or somebody else that mentions the date when the DoH started to use the “Filed by Registrar” phrase for all certificates? Did it happen before or after the 2008 elections?
I would assume that documents using the same revision number would use the same phrase, since she implied that this was a static data. There are COLBs using the same revision number (11/01) that show different phrases.
Something does not add up here.
Of course, nearly all US citizens who have obtained a passport have been required to provide a birth certificate. However, Obama’s birth in Hawaii has been better established than my birth in the State of New York.
I have relied on my short form certificate to prove the facts of my birth. However, my birth was registered nearly two weeks after my birth. Furthermore, I was born in a state that has a land border with a foreign country and at a time when international air travel was more accessible than in 1961. I have never seen my own long-form birth certificate.
If challenged, I will cite the implausibility of my mother wanting to go abroad whilst pregnant and that giving birth in New York was the obvious and practical option because she and my father lived there at the time. The plausibility of my mother giving birth abroad would, of course, be lower if my mother had been an eighteen-year-old student with very little money.
It is always interesting reading comments like yours and finding the mistakes made in them.
One thing that is interesting is when people try to present that numbers being out of sequence in a time when documents were done in paper and pencil. I remember how easy credit cards slips get out of order and this was 30 years after Obama was born.
The president was born on the main island. Okubo statement should be accepted as a history lesson as it was the process used at the time Obama was born. 35 statement put forward by Mario Apuzzo to be misrepresentation of the facts. I think someone priorities are mixed up here.
Why did you only hear about the registration system becoming computerized, but missed the date/period? I think that many of the inquired you made to the good doctor you could answer yourself. However, I think that isn’t your real intention.
Doc had a complete blog post on “Date filed v date accepted” http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/
Hi, NC! You do realize that your questions have already been asked and answered, don’t you? Why are you wasting your time?
The statement was contained in an email message from Okubo to anti-Obama blogger Butterdezillion. Butterdezillion has been a frequent communicant with the Hawaii Department of Health, filing various requests for information on administrative practices. Reference link is to the Butterdezillion web site.
http://butterdezillion.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/confirmation-that-certificate-number-given-by-state-registrar%E2%80%99s-office/
As to your question as what you are missing: Okubo said that for certificates issued for births on the main island, the date filed and the date accepted are essentially the same thing.
There are numerous small variations in the 11/01 form revision. As to why no new revision number was assigned, I don’t know. The most logical answer is that they considered the change inconsequential.
Thanks for the link.
The omittion of the word State in the “Filed by Registrar” phrase as printed on COLB got me confused. Your original post using the short excerpt from Okubo’s statement also did not use the phrase “Filed by State Registrar”. I thought that the term State Registrar was used only for the main office in Honolulu. The full quote of Okubo’s words implies that the term State Registrar was used for any DoH office that handled birth registrations.
However two issues are still open: When did they switch to printing only one phrase “Filed by Registrar”? I suspect that this was done in October 2008 when they created a new COLB format (the document revision number was changed at that time).
I am not convinced that the DoH would keep the same revision number (11/01) if they made such a change few years earlier (prior to June 6, 2007).
The second issue regarding the registration number: Obama’s birth registration number (10641) was not assigned on the same date (August 8, 1961) when the file was processed. We know that Nordyke twins’ numbers (10637 and 10638) were stamped on August 11, the same date when their birth certificates were signed by the physician and documents processed by the DoH office. It is very likely that Obama’s number was stamped on August 11, shortly after the numbers for Nordyke twins.
We see an anomaly in Obama’s case. Could it be attributed to a slightly different internal process for handling unattended birth registration?
It is obvious that you did not connect the dots regarding the registration number timeline.
We know that Obama’s registration was processed on August 8, 1961. The newspaper birth announcements followed few days later.
Nordyke twins’ birth certificates were processed on August 11, 1961. Their newspaper birth announcements were published few days later than Obama’s.
This tells us that birth registrations for Obama and Nordyke twins were processed by the DoH at different times.
According to Okubo, the numbers were assigned by the main office. When you look at the Nordyke birth certificate, the registration number appears to be stamped by the machine.
What is a reasonable explanation for Obama’s registration number to be stamped on the document three days after the registration was filed by the registrar?
This is my theory. First, look on the Nordyke certificate (it’s easier to read on the 1963 Alan certificate). There is no “Date Filed” on it. Long form birth certificates from 1961 do not have a “Date Filed” on them. The information on the COLB is abstracted from the long form. Therefore the date on the COLB, whether labeled “Date Filed” or “Date Accepted,” is NOT the “Date Filed” on the long form because there is no such thing. Therefore the only possible date that could have been abstracted for the COLB was one of the two Dates Accepted. If indeed it is the date accepted, the date it came into the office, then we have no assurance at all when it was processed filed and numbered. And if this is correct, there is nothing particularly odd about the slightly out of sequence number.
Virtually all births (99.4%) in Hawaii in 1961 were hospital births. It stands to reason that the few (100 statewide) unattended births would be the exceptions to the rule, would require special handling and would be the ones that took longer, a lot longer. The fact that Obama’s certificate number is just 3 higher than the Nordyke’s number tells me that he did not go through an extended exception process. If anything the numbering, in my mind, rules out an unattended birth.
Supposing you could prove that Obama’s birth was unattended. What then? Everyone involved is dead. No court cares. Even if one did, all they could say is that he wasn’t born in a hospital. Besides, even if you could convince a court to accept that he might have been born outside the US, it’s far from clear that they would find him ineligible because of that. Even Tim Adams believes Obama is eligible. Do you think Congress would impeach someone for the crime of being born outside a hospital? Your arguments are only useful as a study in psychopathology.
nc1 – “When you look at the Nordyke birth certificate, the registration number appears to be stamped by the machine.”
Actually, the Nordyke BCs look like a handstamp rather then a machine stamp. The numbers are quite in the same location on the page. And two of the numbers (06 in 10637 and 10638) are raised above the other numbers. It looks like the kind of stamp with dials for digit in the number. Stamp a BC, turn the right most dial and the number moves up one, stamp another BC, turn the dial again and stamp another BC. In fact, in 1961, its is likely they used a master index book, stamp a BC, then stamp the index book and fill in the lines with the childs name.
Here is a question for you, in the newspaper announcements, there are several children who were born (8/06/61) after the Nordyke Twins (8/05/61) listed. If their BCs were processed on the same day as President Obama’s would they have lower certificate numbers then the Nordyke twins?
There are hand stamps that automatically increment the number. However, that stamp looks awfully big and wide for a hand stamp. Given that they did 17,000 certificates a year, I think a more substantial numbering machine is indicated. They certainly wouldn’t have used something that had to be manually incremented — just too easy to screw up.
If Obama was born in the Kapiolani Hospital his birth registration process was the same as the one for Nordyke twins. Therefore the same date from the long form birt certificate would have been used as a source for the COLB abstraction. We know that Nordyke twins’ documents were signed by the attending physician on August 11. The same date can bee seen hand stamped as the date when the document was processed by the registrar. Therefore the same date August 11 would have been printed on Nordyke twins COLB.
I don’t see how anyone could come up with an earlier date to be shown on Nordyke COLB.
There should be much bigger difference between the registration numbers if no anomaly took place and numbers were assigned the same date when the registrations were filed by the State Registrar.
Nordyke twins’ registration was not immediately signed by the attending physician. If you look at their long form birth certificate documents you will see that physician signed it on August 11. Therefore it is possible that babies born couple days after the Nordyke twins could have been registered earlier by the DoH because their attending physician signed the paperwork prior to August 11.
It would be quite interesting to have a COLB or a long form certificate for one person born the day after Nordyke twins but the newspaper announcment was published on the same day as Obama’s. The registration number for this person would give us the answer whether there was an anomaly for Obama’s BC only.
Here’s my theory.
Numbers were assigned on a Friday for all the birth certificates for the week. If 17000 people were born in Hawaii that year, that would mean that 46 people were born per day. (August 11, 1961 was a Friday).
Now, Nordyke comes right before Obama in the Alphabetization. Before they stamped them, they Alphabetize them for the week. That would put Obama slightly before Nordyke.
The date coorisponds to the date that the file reached the birth certificate.
I have no official confirmation on this, of course, but this could easily explain it.
Never mind on the Alphabetizing. Susan Nordyke was before Gretchen Nordyke.
But it’s a minor detail. The main thing that confirms this is the following:
“I certify that this is a true abstract or copy of the record on file at the Hawaii Department of Health” — Alvin T. Onaka, State Registrar
It is time to repeat this: No birth certificate in the history of the United States has been authenticated as thoroughly as that of Barack Obama II. No birth certificate has been personally attested by the both the Director of the Department of Health and the Governor of the state.
Dr C. – “that stamp looks awfully big and wide for a hand stamp”
I’ve seen hand stamps, with a fonts that are approximately 1/2″ X 3″. And they were the type that are self-inking and changed the numbers automatically. And from time to time they produced that raised number effect that occurs in both Nordyke BCs. It happens when some numbers don’t quite rotate as much as they should.
While 17000 is alot per year, it translates into about 70/day (17000/12 months/22 working days).
nc1 – if the Nordyke’s mother signed the BCs on August 7th, where were they (the BCs) for the next three days (at hospital, at DOH)? Could the certification numbers been assigned on the 7th?
Since we only know three certificate numbers from August, 1961, and since we cannot say for certain what the procedures were for registering births and assigning cert. numbers, we cannot say that the President’s numbers are anomalous. Maybe the Nordykes BCs are the ones that are out of whack.
Even if tomorrow, you could see the President’s long form BC and the number is as previously reported, that would not explain why it is apparently out-of-sequence.
The only way to determine what went on, is to view BCs from children with cert numbers before the Nordyke’s, after the Nordyke’s and after the President’s. It maybe that all the children with BCs filed on August 8th have higher cert numbers then the Nordykes..
Which leads one to the conclusion that they weren’t numbered on the same day they were Accepted. Remember, Hawaii long forms do not have a Date Filed on them. We don’t have a clue when either certificate was filed.
We know for sure that Nordyke certificates could not have been filed prior to August 11 (when their birth registrations were signed by the physician and accepted by the DoH)
Are you suggesting that their certificates were filed at the later date? That would only make Obama’s number look more out of place than it is because his COLB indicates that his registration was accepted on August 8.
Newspaper birth announcements were separated by three days as well. Registration numbers point out to a delay in stamping Obama’s birth certificate.
The question is whether the same form was used – if Obama’s birth was registered as an unattended one – perhaps a different form was used which could explain a delay in processing it. Would a different form require an additional signature from somebody in the DoH office – perhaps that person was not available on August 8?
I guess that the original birth certificate would clear these questions. One wonders what is it that causes Obama such a reluctance for releasing this document.
Because he wants to make people like you miserable. I hope it keeps you up nights.
If you look Nordyke birth certificate you will find out that there was a delay in signing it by the attending physician. Birth certificates were signed on August 11. The document also says that it was accepted by the State Registrar on the same date. Therefore it is safe to assume that Nordyke birth certificates were in the Kapiolani hospital unti August 11.
The question is – how long did it take for DoH office to accept, file and stamp certification number.
Since there is three days difference between dates shown on Obama’s and Nordyke certificates it is safe to assume that (if the certificates were going through the same process) Nordyke registration numbers should have been higher than Obama’s. There must have been a delay in stamping the numbers on Obama’s certificate. The question is why?
The easiest way to determine what went on is simple – Obama needs to authorize the release of the original long form birth certificate. That is the ultimate goal – confirmation of the official bitrthplace story. Otherwise, I could care less for the process of handling Hawaii birth certificates.
LOL! Ahhh, back to your basic concern trolling, I see.
Well, you can wish all you want for your “ultimate goal” there, but it won’t happen and the “long form” is completely irrelevant to the only issue that matters in terms of NBC qualifications – place of birth.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, any fields of information that appear on the COLB come from any “original” and therefore, those such fields would be exactly the same.
As Obama’s HI COLB clearly answers this *only* relevant question – explicitly stating born in Honolulu, HI, nothing else matters and any “long form” wouldn’t change that only relevant issue.
To date, ever single comment by HI officials have stood behind this Obama HI COLB. The state has also been quite clear that they ONLY provide the COLB format since 2001, which BCs are requested. So again, all your babbling about “long forms” and other irrelevant nit-picking is nothing but meaningless red-herrings and worthless strawman arguments.
So you can keep tllting at windmills all you want, but you’ve already lost your quixotic quest quite some time ago, but hey, keep wasting your time. In the meantime, Obama will continue to do the sensible thing and ignore you silly folks and focus on being President.
Exactly. Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.
Well, in 2036, the birth certificate will become available as an ancient document, to any researcher doing genealogical research.
So, live it up now, because in 26 years, this particular conspiracy will die a natural death, to be replaced by another conspiracy. (The conspiracy is dead, long live the conspiracy!)
And it doesn’t even make the top 10 conspiracy list
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/top-10-consipracy-theories/uftp0c0n?from=en-us_msnhp>1=42007
In my experience with vital statistics agencies which began in 1977, I have encountered the issue of backlog. They get behind in their work (work that includes both the registration and the issuance of certificates). I recall that at one point it took months to get a certificate in California, and I recall that at one point counties in Georgia were issuing birth certificates from local records because it took months for the state to process them. Mail in certificate requests to Hawaii are said to take 3-4 weeks.
These anecdotes don’t prove that the registration process in Hawaii was backlogged in 1961, but they do show the plausibility of it. If work was backlogged then there are any number of reasons that piles of work could get out of strict chronological order. There is also the more remote possibility that some missing information on the Obama certificate had to be obtained before the certificate was filed.
Remember, Barack Obama Sr. was the first African student at the University of Hawaii (or so newspaper reports say). Perhaps a clerk pulled out his form to ask a supervisor what to do when classifying the father’s race, “African” if the clerk had never seen it before.
There are just too many perfectly reasonable explanations why the certificates numbers are out of sequence to raise the “concern” flag.
What’s your sinister explanation for why the number is out of sequence? Please detail the scenario to cover all the known facts.
I’m highly surprised that #10 on the list was about oil/gas stopping electric cars, as that definitely happened.
Most people don’t realize that many of the first “cars” were electric ones. In fact, Cleveland, with Baker Electric, was once considered the “electric car capital of the world”. So there is no conspiracy myth here really – just that most people have forgotten about them completely or mistakenly assumed that cars always ran on oil/gas until just recently.
Electric cars definitely were in their heyday during the first 2 decades of the 20th century.
As gas/oil became more cost effective & highway systems began to be built, they were out-competed by the oil/gas industry and eventually disappeared from the market by the time of the Great Depression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_electric_vehicle
I wonder if they got their car conspiracy myths confused and meant to refer to the myth about a car that could run on water being developed instead… I remember the Lone Gunmen did an excellent episode about it once…
Exactly. Obama will be re-elected, and Cory Booker will follow. Better get used to it.
Thanks for saying what I’ve been considering. Cory’s awesome, and I’m crossing my fingers.
(long time lurker here)
I can’t wait for this crowd when he runs – race has nothing to do with it:
– Booker was born in DC. That’s not a state. Sorry, Gore was born in DC.
– We don’t know who Booker’s father was. Could have been an illegal, or a foreign student. Hey, it didn’t work for Obama, but let’s try again.
– Booker’s BC was faked. He was born in Canada. Let’s throw everything against the wall, and see what sticks.
– No one ever asked a white man to show his birth certificate. OK, let’s see everyone’s.
Me either. I’ll get the popcorn. Should we order up “bookerconspiracy.org” now or wait a little?
I mentioned my theory before: An unattended birth required diferent registrstion form and slightly different registration process. Perhaps it required a signature from the State Registrar (not just the clerk in the main office) and it took several days until it was obtained.
Basically an ordinary birth registrationd submitted by hospitals would have been rubber-stamped and quickly processed in the main DoH office while unattended births had to be approved by a supervisor. Such a process could cause a delay between the Accepted and Filed date.
If we could examine the long form birth registration, there would be no need for speculation.
No, no. Please continue to speculate. I’m having fun watching.
Obama was born on a Friday. The document was filed by the Registrar on Tuesday. If someone mailed in the form for a home birth, it would take longer than that to get it, verify the information, generate the form, and file it. Government offices weren’t open on Saturday or Sunday. That seems a reasonable amount of time for registering a hospital birth.
I have friends who did the home birth thing in PA in the late 1970s. Registering the births took a while (not 1 business day) and involved submitting medical records, notarized witness statements, and a long questionnaire. They had a year to submit everything and weren’t in a hurry to do so. It took them a couple of months. The witnesses were called to verify the story.
I wonder how they came up with their top 10. I’m not so sure I agree with it–I mean, especially if they’re talking about “of all time.” Paul McCartney? Meh. Who cares?
What about that whole international Jewish bankers conspiracy? Seems like that should be higher. FDR letting Pearl Harbor happen?
Yeah, pretty much OT, sorry.
A little OT again, but not too bad I hope. It’s relevant to the blog as a whole, anyway, and I guess this is as good a place as any to put it.
On Oh for Goodness Sake’s latest “Dispatches from Birtherstan”, they have a link to this letter that this guy wrote to Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/25/admiral-mullen-it-is-your-move-sir/
I don’t get it. Okay, I know everyone’s going to say that it’s a waste of time to try to make sense of it, and maybe so, but still …. usually these things have at least some kind of tenuous connection to reality. I mean, there are some actual events that they’re referring to, even if their interpretation of them is kind of …. interesting.
But, I could go through this whole thing, and I seriously don’t know what he’s talking about. But in the interest of brevity, I’ll skip to the one that really made me go, “Wait, what?”
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”
What’s that about? Okay, “ravaged our coasts” could have something to do with the gulf oil spill, I guess. I know there’s some BS theory around about how Obama wanted the spill to happen, even ordered it. But what’s this about burning towns?
For real. These guys are speaking a whole different language. I sort of follow this stuff (intermittently, anyway), and I’m just completely in the dark about what’s being referred to here. I can’t imagine how someone who hasn’t been following it at all could make heads or tails of it.
Can anyone help me out about the burning towns? Or any of the rest of it? Seriously.
Oops. Of course I meant Bad Fiction.
Passerby (asked about): “He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.”
Quite simple, he’s got Barack Obama and George III confused (the quote is from the Declaration of Independence). Here are the particulars:
Okay, Doc. Thanks. I think I’m fairly well educated, but I admit I don’t have the Declaration of Independence memorized. (I can, however, sing the Preamble to the Constitution on cue. Schoolhouse Rock 🙂 )
Well, I looked it up, and it explains more than just the one. Most of the items in that letter came straight from the Declaration.
It still doesn’t explain, though, what the connection is supposed to be with current events. Why are those particular claims included here? I mean, if it’s just getting stuff from the Declaration as if Obama were George, then why not also put in
“For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:”
or
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. ”
Either of those would make just as much sense, to me, as the claims he did put in. It really seems that he thinks that ravaging coasts and burning towns and whatnot is a fair description of things that Obama has done. What things could he be thinking of?
I’d have a real suggestion for these guys. Honestly meant. Before you send a letter to someone in an official capacity, or publish something for a general audience, you should have someone read it who’s not part of your movement. Not necessarily a liberal; in fact, it might be better if they’re not. The ideal might be someone who’s not that into politics, so they don’t have any strong emotional investment either way. Have that person read your thing, and listen to their reaction. If that reaction is, “Wait. What?”, then you’re doing something wrong. At the very least, you probably need to put in a little more background so they’ll at least know what you’re talking about.
Unless it’s all just for internal consumption anyway, that is.
LOL! Trust me, you are not alone. That is how I remember those words to this day – by singing the Schoolhouse Rock version. I think many of my generation do. 🙂
Well, I can tell you there is an actual International Jewish Conspiracy.™
You see, I’m active in it.