Stock photo
Former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, made this stunning revelation in an interview with NBC:
Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files –” and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.
Dr. Fukino emphasized: “It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that.” She reiterated that computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.
This quote from the article is also quite important”
“But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.
“It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago. ”
I think the birthers are going to be very sorry that The Donald raised the profile of their issue in the national spotlight… Can’t wait to hear the crickets from the birhters on this thread. Come on guys – now we know what the ‘written down’ thing is – are you satisfied now?
Wow, another body blow to the birthers – this is great!
April 10, 2011. A day that will live in birther infamy!
Another quote from the article – nc1 will be so happy that this was confirmed! Maybe it will even vote for President Obama now… 😉
Of course folks like Ron Polland have called Fukino a liar, and that’s not going away. This revelation, however, trashes the whole relative registration theory and for anyone to continue to assert that they have to resort to “everybody’s lying,” forcing their group further into the fringe.
If, as we presume, Arizona passes their birther bill, Barack Obama may well send them a copy of the long form, and this will be corroborated by Dr. Funkino before anyone can cry “forgery.”
I am reminded of the quote from Lincoln that I used as my quote of the day recently where he says some things have to reach a crisis before they are resolved.
There. Now it’s settled. Totally put to bed.
I expect a flood of apologies and contrition from birthers (now all ex-birthers) in this thread.
How many more confirmations does nc1 need now?
This should be a death blow to birtherism. Let the spinning begin.
Two things:
1. Pay attention to what is quoted, and what is not.
2. Dr. Fukino is not speaking under the authority of the State of Hawaii. She had full opportunity to clear up any portion of this debate when she was the Director of the Department of Health. She chose not to do that. Anything she says now is no more official than that which would be said by Dr. Conspiracy.
Nice try at spin, Lil birther, until you step back and realize how bitter and ridiculous you sound.
Give it up. It. Is. Over.
Here we go again. Now tell me why would she make this up? It seems that she can speak more freely now that she is not in an official capacity. Get It? Probably not.
L’il Red, are you the official birther denialist? If not, has your statement been cleared with Birther Central?
In response to Lil’ Red, it is clear that no information or proof will satisfy you.
Nevertheless, Dr. Fukino is a percipient witness to what she did and what she saw. The fact that she is no longer employed by the State of Hawaii is meaningless as a matter of law. It is also meaningless to you, since when she was an official of the State birthers refused to believe her. Dr. Fukino could have testified endlessly, under oath, cross-examined by Ms. Dr. Taitz, and you would not have believed her.
There never was any debate as to President Obama’s birthplace, as the certificate of live birth ended all rational debtate. Dr. Fukino’s prior official statements, as well as those of Governor Lingle and others, made clear what the truth is.
You are absolutely correct! Now that she is not speaking in any official capacity, she can say whatever she wants.
It is also important to observe that Dr. Fukino was not quoted to have said that Obama’s birth certificate was signed by a physician. That is something the writer of the article concluded. (Not that a quote from the ex-director would have been any better.)
Why are all of you so upset? Did you really expect that anything less than documented evidence of birth in a hospital was going to end the controversy?
ROTFLMAO!!!
Let the birther idiots squawk.
They have proven time and again that they are far too stupid to understand why they are golden to the Obama campaign in the next election.
Are Trump’s crack investigators Gary Busey and Meatloaf?
Obama/Biden 2012.
Documented proof will not end the controversey for Lil’ Red. As some folksd here have said, we are waiting for someone to say, “I will vote for President Obama if only he produces his original birth certificate.”
So far, no such person has emerged.
How about it, Lil’ Red?
What an idiotic comment.
This new interview simply backs up and further clarifies the two OFFICIAL statements that were released by Dr. Fukino when she was Director of Health for the state of Hawaii.
Was Dr.C ever Director of Health for the state of Hawaii? Did Dr. C ever follow the instruction of the REPUBLICAN Governor of the state of Hawaii to go and personally view the long form, vault copy, original birth certificate in the files of the Department of Health?
YOU may not accept Dr. Fukino’s statement, but I guarantee you that any Judge or any Congressional Committee sure will.
And I’m betting that whenever Governor Abercrombie gets around to appointing a permanent replacement for Dr. Fukino, that Democratic appointee will back up Dr. Fukino’s statement OFFICIALLY.
I just told you what would satisfy me. I want the Hawaii Department of Health to produce the original vital record for inspection. If it indicates that Obama was born in Kapiolani, and was attended to by a physician, I will be satisfied that he was born in Hawaii.
Will that end the debate as to Obama being a natural born citizen? No!
“Natural-born citizen; one who is a member of a state or nation by virtue of birth. Whether it is necessary to this that the father should be a citizen is disputed; those jurists who follow the doctrine of national character prevailing in continental Europe hold that it is; American jurists generally hold that it is not.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=UXnrfYX1IFEC&pg=PA1019&dq=%22whether+it+is+necessary+to+this+that+the+father+should+be+a+citizen%22&hl=en&ei=XDmLTbmaKs6EtgfF–CFDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22whether%20it%20is%20necessary%20to%20this%20that%20the%20father%20should%20be%20a%20citizen%22&f=false
Unsettled law remains unsettled until decided by the Supreme Court or addressed by constitutional amendment.
No, I never thought anything would end the controversy, even including a certified copy of the hospital certificate. If they had a “long form” hard-core birthers would just call it a forgery and any Hawaiian official who corroborates it a liar. It’s all so predictable.
I don’t think this interview has anything to do with her change in job, rather it’s a response to Donald Trump insulting the State.
Dr. Conspiracy,
You should note that I said nothing about a certified long-form.
I want the Hawaii Department of Health to present, for visual inspection by any member of the press or government official representing any state, the original vital record.
But the AG’s rep said that only Obama, himself, can view the record, so you is SOL.
I guess all that’s left is to rate the birther denials for style and substance…
Style: a cryptic suggestion (intended, I believe, to lend the author credibility for their supposed insightfulness) and several factual statements strung together in an attempt to spin the opposite of the rational conclusion. On a scale of 1 (say, the Bush v. Gore decision) to 10 (the Declaration of Independence), I give this a 0.01 (+ 0.05 for being the first birther apologist for a grand total of 0.06)
Substance: a meaningless suggestion and an attempt at trying to spin facts into lies. On a scale of 0 (obviously false to any sentient life form) to 10 (as true as the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry)* I think that this rates about 10^(-10).
*The most credible birther assertion is rumored to have scored a 10^(-5) on this scale – the reverend fake doctor Manning’s trial has a negative rating on this scale and it is not possible to grade Orly without using imaginary numbers…
Spiro Theodore Agnew, 39th Vice president of the united states, was born to a non citizen father and a citizen mother. According to the 12 amendment, the VP has the same candidacy restrictions as the President. His greek heritage was well known, in fact that’s what helped get him the VP slot. Not a single challenge to his eligibility or NBCness was made.
Dont believe me? Agnew was born in 1918. heres a pic of the 1920 census
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p5Ru9m0c4Ho/S05BipCq5GI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/6cNj7fCT_Sc/s1600-h/imageCAFPWLM0.jpg
See lines 72-75, where just three lines above the entry for one-year-old Spiro Agnew, Theodore Agnew’s citizenship is clearly listed as “Alien”:
Spin that, Lil red.
Lil’ Red just demonstrated that the goalposts have moved. Even if born in Hawaii, in a hospital, and attended by a physician, Lil’ Red now wants a judicial determination of the thoroughly discredited two-parent citizen argument. Apparently, Ankeny v. Daniels, which the losers declined to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, was not enough.
One wonders if the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 if that would be sufficient, or does it have to be 9-0? Are there any other goalposts you want to move? Do you want to argue that the President renounced his citizenship in Indonesia? That he gave it up by going to Pakistan on a trip? Any other rules we should know?
You are simply dedicated to proving that some folks opposed to President Obama will never accept him, and that their antipathy is irrational.
What do you have against Gary Busey and Meatloaf?
freerepublic.com already has FIVE duplicate threads up devoted to the Fukino interview. All of them tear into her with a vengence and attempt to parse her words to death. Naturally she’s now a “Democrat “even though she was an appointee of the previous Republican Governor and resigned her position when Neil Abercrombie’s administration took over!
She’s also been “bought off” by Obama.
Where did you go to law school, John? I’m guessing you did not.
Since it’s your argument, I’ll ask you; On what grounds would the Supreme Court acquire jurisdiction over the Ankeny case? Was there a federal question presented in that case? Have you read the briefs, or did you just read the dicta of the Indiana Appellate Court?
I’d say the eligibility of the president of the united states is a federal question.
Notice that Lil Red has now shifted the conversation away from the Fukino DISASTER for his cause. quote skilled eh?
I’d say you have no idea what you are talking about. The Ankeny case had to do with the duty of the governor. That’s as far as it goes. Once the appellate court determined that the governor had no duty to determine eligibility, the case was over. They could have applied for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, but the decision would have been the same. -i.e. The Governor had no duty to verify the eligibility of the candidates.
Trust but verify.
Dr. Fukino claimed in 2009 that Obama was a natural born citizen. Not much has changed.
Short of publishing the copy of the original birth certificate we are still waiting for the official confirmation whether COLB was issued by the DoH.
Have they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama on June 6, 2007?
Does the registration number 10641 belong to Obama?
Dr. Fukino had many chances to answer these questions while she was the director of DoH. She chose not to.
DoH representative (Okubo) lied to AP writer Mark Niesse when she claimed that birth index for 1961 could be purchased from DoH for $98.75.
Lying about trivial things does not make any sense if the official birthplace story were true.
Article contains several lies and misstatements. Just what is a “Record of Live Birth”? Is Hawaii simply making this stuff up as we go along. Where is Obama’s CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH????
The article also mentions that long-form Birth Certificates are unobtainable. This is Bull! Miki Booth just obtained a long-form birth certificate a couple of weeks ago. The Hawaii AG appears to be lying.
The following also appears to be a lie:
“The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said.”
The COLB was dated June 2007. During this time there were little or no persons wondering about Obama’s birthplace. I find it hard to believe the Obama camp would get the COLB for this reason and then wait a year before producing it.
Mario Apuzzo also points out the fact that if this was true, then this would be considered an official state transaction and the State of Hawaii would have a record of it. To date, Hawaii has never able to provide any evidence that a COLB was ever requested.
Finally, Dr. Fukino’s statement doesn’t sound credible given the cryptic and vague statements made by Governor Neil Abercrombie.
If Fukino says what is true, then I would find it hard to believe that Neil Abercrombie would not have been evasive, vague and tightlipped as we were lead to believe.
[I approved this comment from James because it contains a reasonable point about the 2007 certificate application and why Obama should be “testy” in 2007. Doc.]
*yawn*
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903
“B.
Natural Born Citizen
Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John
McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, “[t]he Governor . . . should [have been] prohibited by order of [the trial court] . . . from issuing any certificate of ascertainment, or any other certified statement, under the State Seal of the State of Indiana… .” Appellants’ Appendix at 13″
Thus eligibility was one of the things the court was asked to address. TOmake it even clearer.
“The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on
constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States’ and a „natural born Citizen,’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President”
Their conclusion.. and I an cutting out a very detailed discussion with lots of case law, you should actually read it
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs’ case.”
Is that clear enough for you, Lil’Red? The court had the eligibility issue brought before it and it ruled. The thing you are talking about is the FIRST of the issues decided. Eligibility was the second.
Spin this.
This is the worth re-iterating. To those who say, “Obama, just release the original” HE CAN’T.
HE CAN’T
HE CAN’T
That is the law in Hawaii. Is Hawaii unique in this regard? I doubt it. That means that other candidates born in other states will probably be unable to release original documents either. Effectively the biirthers are saying if you have a b.c issued many years ago, maybe you can run. If you lost it, too bad. Sort of like saying if I lose my wallet with my driver’s license in it I CAN NEVER DRIVE AGAIN.
The stupidity boggles the mind.
the Birtherville excuse Marathon has now officially started with nc1’s silly entry, Keep it up, we need the laughs! Again, the mentally challeged have to believe in the conspiracy, how else can they explain the muslim usurper. Funny Stuff, next nc1 witl be shouting “I didn’t come from no monkey”, she needs to join Goldline!
“But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago. ”
But even if the lord Jesus himself burned it onto your forehead with a finger of fire, you wouldn’t believe it.
<blockquote.DoH representative (Okubo) lied to AP writer Mark Niesse when she claimed that birth index for 1961 could be purchased from DoH for $98.75.
A birther ordered it and you started bitching about lack of index numbers. Remember?
As for the Vatteliist arguments they will get zero traction among the voters at large. Joe Sixpack can understand being born in the US vs outside. He might even be induced to care (somewhat debatable). But Swiss philosophers? You gotta be joking.
I sincerely doubt the b.c. ever swayed any votes. I am still looking to find even a single one. But the Vattelist crappola, I can absolutely guarantee you will never in a million years sway a single vote.
Donald Trump, Dr Fukino just fired you!
It’s kind of pathetic that birthers like Lil’ Red try to lie so blatantly even though they know that they are going to get busted for lying by folks here who have the facts and know the truth.
The “B” section of Ankeny v Governor dealing with natural born citizenship has been posted on this blog scores of times.
Doc,
This thread is a fun treat for a Sunday afternoon – thanks!
Do you understand the appellate process? The case could have been appealed until it was scheduled for conference at the SCOTUS. Upon denial of cert, the SCOTUS would have implicitly ruled that the original opinion was Constitutional. Most of us here believe that the fact that this wasn’t done speaks volumes about the birther movement.
The NBC article mentioned here is currently the number one viewed article on their web site with 337,000 views so far, and 3,000 comments. I left a comment correcting their spelling of Dr. Fukino’s name (once it is “Fukimo”).
I think we all knew this would not end well for Trump.
“Ludicrous” and “birther” in the same sentence flows very well. Doesn’t it?
It’s ending a little prematurely for Trump (his show isn’t quite done for the season…), but I wouldn’t say it’s ending badly (for him, anyway – it’s obviously another epic fail for the birthers…). As they say, there is no bad publicity…
I don’t think its ending at all frankly. They will wipe this from their brain and continue like nothing has happened
“Are Trump’s crack investigators Gary Busey and Meatloaf?”
.
according to fogbow, it is j corsi, the lord of WND
“But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.
“It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
That means Miki Booth is lying and that her birth certificate is a FAKE.
No, but this will be brought up on every future interview that Trump gives from this point forward. Trump will have to call a fellow Republican a liar or go Vattel. Neither is a viable choice.
In an e-mail to Butterdezillion, the HDOH said that she could buy a copy of the computer print out of index data for $98.75. Could that be what Ms. Okubo was describing?
Okubo said the same thing to Mark Niesse and he included it in his article that was published in August 2010. However, when Butterdezillion tried to actually pay for it the DoH refused to take money. They changed their story and claimed that only a five year cumulative birth index could be obtained.
I think you have a good point. In conversations with a reporter covering the Obama campaign, the campaign staff were described as “testy” in August of 2008 over questions about the certificate, but these were not about Obama personally.
suranis,
You and your buddy Slartibartfast don’t understand what you are talking about.
The Ankeny case could have been disposed of without answering any federal question. Just because the Court of Appeals decided to give us their (poorly reasoned) opinion does not make it a case in which a federal question must be answered in order for it to be disposed of.
Let’s take a look at how the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted ARK just one year after SCOTUS handed down their decision.
“lf appellant was born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of her birth, were subjects of the emperor of China, but had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and were here carrying on business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, she would become at the time of her birth a citizen of the United States, and be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities, as such, including her right to land and remain in the United States.” -Lee Sing Far v United States (1899)
—It should be noted that the COA affirmed the lower court’s ruling against citizenship in Lee Sing Far. The lower court denied Lee Sing Far citizenship because they did not consider the witnesses, who claimed to be present when Far was born, to be reliable.
Who witnesses Obama’s birth? -To date, only one person has claimed to have witnessed Obama’s birth. That is Mama Sarah. While there is discrepancy as to where that birth took place, no one has claimed that she was not present (as she stated). If it was in Hawaii, it should be pretty to establish that she had a passport.
Or are you guys going to say that Mama Sarah lied, and was not present when Obama was born? On what gounds are you going to consider her claim to have witnessed the birth to be unreliable?
The birth of a grandchild is a significant event in the life of a grandmother. She knows which grandchild’s birth she was there for.
Did Obama’s Father have a permanent domicile and residence here? No! He was here on a student visa. His intent was to return to Kenya when he finished his education.
Obama’s citizenship, even if he was born in Hawaii, is unsettled law. It’s obvious that it is not a problem for any of you, but there are others who would like the Court to settle the matter.
Perhaps the fact that the Court has rejected a dozen cases reflects the fact that in their minds it IS settled, and that those who claim it is not are simply mistaken? Consider it. The fact that you claim it is not settled does not make it so.
Could you or anyone else point out the law preventing the release of the original birth certifiate to the preson who requests his own record? If there is no such law – the UIPA law allows the release of any record maintained by a government agency.
Wisch’s claim flies in the face of common sense – we can ask for FBI’s records about us yet DoH birth certificate is a secretive document?
Since Mrs. Obama never said that the president was born in Kenya, and never claimed to have been present for his birth, why would any rational person call her a liar? She not only never claimed that, she is on record in other interviews as saying she first heard about the future president’s birth via a letter from her son, sent from Hawaii.
This pathetic grasping at any set of straws you can try to tie together in some mishapen form simply reveals a mind that needs Obama to be illegitimate for psychological reasons of its own.
On the grounds that she said he was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya. You really do have to listen to the entire tape or read the entire transcript.
Please tell me when did Obama’s presidential campaign start?
According to the article:
“…Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said…”
There were no questions about Obama’s eligibility in June 2007. Why would they feel the need to put the nonexistent issue to rest? More BS from Obama’s camp, business as usual.
Isikoff needs to ask the anonimous campaign official for a little clarification.
Congratulations! You have demonstrated your level of competency to discuss jurisprudence.
Cases that are dismissed on standing are not decided on the merits; no matter how much idiots want to believe that to be the case. The only precedent set by the affirmation of such dismissals is that others who are similiarly situated would also lack standing.
Unsettled law does not miraculously become settled law just because no one with standing presents a case. It must be a decision on the merits before it can be considered to be settled law.
A question is not an argument.
Here’s a link to the statute.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
It is obvious that the previous Attorney General, Mark Bennett’s interpretation and the new Attorney General, David Louie’s interpretation is that “certified copy” in the law refers to a Certification of Live Birth, not an original long form, vault copy birth certificate.
However a court or a congressional committee could issue a subpoena for the original document and the Attorney General’s office in Hawaii would have to figure out how they would respond to such a court order.
My money would be on a sworn deposition from the Registrar of Vital Records or the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health as to the information on an original birth record would suffice for any judge or congressional committee.
Cool the ad hominen.
Your link referred to Obama as “testy”:
The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense.”)
How could he be testy about putting the issue to rest in 2007?
Is this “make it up as you go night”?
Taken from this site:
Ogombe to Sarah Obama: Alikuma zalima Obama [unintelligible].
Kweli Shuhudia: He is asking her, he wants to know something was ah she present when he was born?
Ogombe: Yes. She says, “Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.”
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/obamas-grandmother-says-he-was-born/
Now who here is going to say that Mama Sarah lied about being present when Obama was born? You can spin the location any which way you want, but she did say she was there.
If it was Hawaii. -Prove that she even had a passport.
“Mama Sarah lied about being present ”
give it up, or at least quote her as saying “..he was born in Hawaii”
Here, maybe this will help with your confusion:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf
actually, they are; one of the key components of a case being taken up by a court is that there is a case to answer – that there is a case or controversy. There cannot be an actual case or controversy without an injured party or a remedy; standing being only given when there is a case to answer, without there being standing, there is no case. You lose.
For sure. But to pretend that the citizenship of someone born on American soil who is not the child of a diplomat is unsettled law is foolish at best, and deliberately ignorant at worst. You lost this argument 113 years ago, pal.
You may call it poorly-reasoned, but just about every law review article that talks about presidential eligibility states that those born in the US are eligible and then go on to talk about the issues for others.
I would agree that the Supreme Court wouldn’t touch the case for any number of reasons, even if Obama’s eligibility where the holding instead of the alternate holding.
As for your comments about the step-grandmother’s statement, you should read the full transcript here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/sarah-obama-speaks/
The translation is useless Doc. Dr. Corsi brought the actual recording to Kenya where natives familiar with Sarah Obama’s dialect listened to the tape. On the tape there is commotion in the background. The commotion is the family members trying to change Sarah Obama’s statement and Sarah’s Obama insistance [sic] that she was present when Obama was born. This is supported by both affidavitts [sic] filed by both the priest and the translator. I imagine Corsi will be dscussing [sic] this in his book.
[Let’s see, Jerome Corsi left for Kenya on October 2, 2008 and returned around October 11, 2008. The affidavit of Kweli Shuhubia filed by Phil Berg says that the phone interview was conducted on October 16, 2008.
You know, I really don’t think that Dr. Corsi took a copy of a recording that hadn’t yet been made with him to Kenya. Do you follow my logic here? Stuff like this is why I don’t let you post here. You just make stuff up and it’s a distraction. Doc.]
I’m just guessing but it might be because he didn’t like the idea of having to prove his U.S citizenship to his political opposition.
Based upon the comment
“Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said.
there is some kind of bullsh*t going on. It would have been better to use the line that he wanted it ready in case he needed it for campaign purposes. Fukino has come out and said EVERYTHING but the COLB on FactCheck was issued by her office. State Department records show that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is some kind of cover-up going on, and it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with a Hawaiian birth. Fukino is covered on all grounds if there was a false certificate generated. All of her statements are carefully crafted. She has said nothing wrong. She has no legal obligation to pursue fraud. She never obstructed justice because there was never an investigation. The issue seems likely to be the father listed on the certificate. Maybe it was absent. My purpose is not to scandalize but figure out why the lying. Ladysforest has evidence that the index with Obama’s information is the only index printed without a header. Explained away as an anomaly? What about this I just discovered this from Ladysforest blog:
Race and color
Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese,
Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
(combined), and “other nonwhite.”
The category “white” includes, in addition to persons
http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf
There is no African listing, even if Stanley Ann wanted to use that race indicator.
Bullsh*t is going on with the certificate.
Joey,
It wasn’t issue in 2007. Wake up.
Perhaps, but the fact is, it DID answer a federal question.
Obama, still president.
page 231 of the Vital Statistics link
She’s never actually examined the hard copy, [insult deleted. Doc.]. What she has said repeatedly is that it looks like the kind of certificates Hawaii issues and she’s checked the information on file from which it derives. That’s enough for sane people.
Her statements only seem carefully crafted to a nut like you because poor Ms. Fukino, like most of us, is not in the habit of filtering her words to imagine how they would come across to irrational lunatics.
The race issue has been covered by others as well. It was not legally required to say Negro, Obama’s father was African, and they have a habit of referring to themselves as Africans or Kenyans (in this case), not Negroes. That you fail to realize something so elementary is testament your own ethnocentric racial blinders, nothing else.
Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana was dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal by the trial court on those grounds. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the Appeals Court’s decision.
With regard to “natural born citizen,” the Indiana Court of Appeals relied on the “guidance provided by {US v}Wong Kim Ark (1898) as “stare decisis” (settled law) for their decision. The Indiana Court of Appeals noted that Wong Kim Ark has been cited in more than 1,000 subsequent cases according to Westlaw.
The federal issue involved that could have gone to the US Supreme Court was the awarding of Indiana’s Electoral College votes to either Barack Obama or John McCain if they were not natural born citizens under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution.
The original story was that they got the certificates in case they needed them, I presume for state filings. We still don’t know for sure that a birth certificate wasn’t filed with some state.
From the November 1, 2008 update of the factcheck.org article “Born in the USA:”
“Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as “African”? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.” It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.”
Yeah Doc. I was only speculating about the “testy” comment.
charo- On this we agree. The response of you and Lil’ Red and all of the birther crew to the plain, simple and obvious truth is indeed Bullsh*t.
bah, what is it with you birthers? This is a statistical chart. Its explaining the categories they put births into for their report. Nothing here has the force of law or is any kind of regulation in this. its just an internal categorization for this statistical report.
basicly they stuck all blacks into the negro bit on the birth statistics. it does not mean that hawai’i would not have accepted African, it means african would have been put into the negro pile in their graphs and flow charts.
Interesting document though. I have it saved for further reading.
On last year’s census form, under race, my wife put down, for all the members of our family “Human”. While this is not normally considered a racial category, we never heard back from the Census Bureau, so I assume the racila breakdown for our tract will show at least 3 humans.
You are confusing child’s race with parents’ race, and it makes big difference. Child race is not even on the hospital birth form; it’s determined by staff based on a set of rules into the categories you listed from information on how the parents describe themselves.
How do you know what was an issue in Obama’s mind in 2007? Folks with foreign sounding names have had to deal with people not accepting them as “real Americans” all their lives.
In 2007, Obama was dealing with a Republican administration in Hawaii and Republican elected officials who were not enamoured of him running as a “native son.”
Those factors could add up to “testy.”
Your family’s data will be recorded in the “some other race” category.
Sorry for being short with you Joey because your answer was civil and mine was not, but your reasoning is quite weak in the context of how the statement was made.
The quoted law does not prevent the release of documents to the registrant. Therefore, Obama could request and the DoH would have to release the copy of the original to him.
The following statement from the Isikoff article is a lie:
“But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.”
To summarize: The NBC article claims that Obama’s birth certificate contains doctor’s signature but the document is half typed – half handwritten.
It also claims that original document cannot be released even to the registrant (no such state law exists) and Obama campaign was concerned about responding to an issue that was non-existent in June 2007.
Simplest answer, He was used to being called unAmerican so he got his BC to but the issue to bed if it came up.
And like I’ve always said, its irrelevant precisely when it was issued, the only thing that matters is that it was ordered before it was published. That puts the matter into reasonable presumption it is genuine
Do you have evidence that FactCheck’s answer about parents calling themselves by whatever race they choose was the practice in 1961? I know that is the case as of the late 80’s and onward because when my students had to fill out their race for testing, they chose their race (some were bi-racial).
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. As I said, I’m just speculating (weak or not) on why Obama was “testy.”
Perhaps someday, the Republicans in the House of Representatives will get around to holding hearings on Obama’s eligibility and subpoena former Governor Lingle, Director Fukino, Registrar Onaka, and Spokesperson Okubo to testify under oath.
Which means that your whining about you “just wanting the original birth cert” is a load of fertilizer and you always knew it. Its an impossibility, no-one can get one.
And the guy just ordered a copy of his BC to shut people up, same as Eisenhower, a Republican, did for his run for the presidency.
I respect your opinion Doc. Are you buying this angle?
Maybe you should write to factcheck and ask them for their evidence rather than get Doc C to do your work for you and defend the work of everyone else?
You are the accuser, the burden of proof is on you.
Now would be a fantastic time for Obama to release the long form. Do you really have a doubt he would be denied? For crying out loud, what is it going to hurt?
Fukino referred to examining to the original data on file twice, not the Internet COLB to which I was referring. It’s a pretty clear distinction to anyone who can actually read English sentences. Being able to carry two thoughts at once helps, too.
As others have explained, you also misuderstand the vital statistics information you are cutting and pasting, the same as the original people who cut and pasted it did.
Oh, and you have African-American friends, too. How special. Never heard that one before.
Doc doesn’t mind answering reasonable questions. I gave my proof. It has not been refuted by documents.
Also, I provided Doc with a link last year that Kenyans should refer to themselves as Africans. Right here, on this website. Whether that has to be accepted by Vital Statictics is another matter.
Hot patootie! Bless my soul! I really love that Rock ‘n Roll!
And we all have African ancestors.
Your comment called for my response.
I guess I was surprise that you were supporting my point.
So you honestly believe you know the laws of Hawaii better than the Attorney General of the state? Please list your professional qualifications in this area.
The entire concept of “races” is not well established by genetics. There is far more in the way of genetic differences between individuals within a given “race” than there is between the “races”. It’s a complex subject, but the summary here covers the main points
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Race_and_ethnicity
My wife was not just being difficult when she said on the census form that we were “human”, she was being quite accurate in the scientific sense.
You, charo, are most assuredly barking up the wrong tree. You really ought to stick to your areas of expertise (say archaic Catholic doctrines) and not venture into the very complex field of human genetics.
HE CAN’T GET IT. Can you read? If so, did you read what the Attorney General’s spokesman said? If not, why are you here?
Charo, do you think nurses would just accept the answer that parents gave them, or would they argue with them?
“Race, Sir?”
“Asian”
“I don’t know sir, you look more Indian to me. Are you sure?”
How often do you think they wanted to argue with people, in a state with a rich multi-cultural heritage even back then?
And don’t let the birthers frame the argument now as being about why Obama was “testy” in 2007. We may never know why, and it doesn’t matter. The point is, this new info is devastating to birtherism, and anyone left arguing birther nonsense at this point is likely mentally Ill.
Why was he testy? For the same reason I was when my husband asked me to sign a document- a necessary document. No, it wasn’t our income tax. My thoughts were “this is silly” but I did it anyway. It is human nature Charo. The problem is that there is nothing, nothing Obama can do to put this to sleep. There wll always be some angle, some reason, some statement. But really, she said she saw the original document, it was signed by the doctor, and was on file. When asked for my race on a county document I put human. It was’t one of the options I just wrote it in. It wasn’t questioned. I could go on but then I realize this is all useless where you people are concerned. Have you ever heard of the flat earth society? You all resemble the members of that group.
I’m not supporting your point. At this point you’re simply admitting that you can’t actually read a sequence of sentences and compile the information correctly.
The birthers are absolutely frothing all over the Internet since this killed birtherism dead. They are trying desperately to find anything to change the subject to, and all they have now are these three things:
1. “testy”
2. Dr. Fukino is no longer in charge and she is lying and they are all in on it.
3. Vattel
All three points are crap and they are furious that birtherism has suffered such a cropping blow.
Mary,
Citizenship was not at issue for Obama in 2007 and as Doc said, the campaign did not state that was the reason for obtaining the COLB then.
As far as “testy” we have only the opinion of an unnamed campaign official. Maybe Obama wasn’t really testy. Maybe he was testy about something totally unrelated. Who knows? Who cares? What a pathetic, miserable life one would have to lead to attach the slightest significance to this.
“Citizenship was not at issue for Obama in 2007 and as Doc said, the campaign did not state that was the reason for obtaining the COLB then.”
at the time I remember it was done to prove his middle name was not “Mohammud”. Not sure of it being true, but that was as issue.
How do you know she even saw a list to chose from? If she was given a blank bc, like the Nordyke’s, it only says “Race of Father”, there are no options.
She’s never actually examined the hard copy, moron. (DP)
Fukino referred to examining to the original data on file twice, not the Internet COLB to which I was referring.
***
I suppose I do have trouble with that kind of sequencing of thoughts. I assumed hard copy was the original which you said she did not examine. And here is what I said:
Fukino never confirmed the COLB by FactCheck.
Charo, You fail to get my point. Sometimes we get “testy” for nothing. As I did. It doesn’t matter whether the year was 2007 or 2008. How was “testy” expressed. Good grief, Charo. I remember the first line of a poem, “Terrence this is stupid stuff.”
Does Obama being testy somehow cancel out all of Dr. Fukino’s words?
Even when she is not the one who described him as testy?
Nope. Move along.
This is the greatest gift ever. The only people who can continue to deny the existence are the pathologically conspiracy minded and the people who have a vested interest in it not being true.
“There is no African listing, even if Stanley Ann wanted to use that race indicator”
.
Fact One: on Hawaiian BC’s you will find, Japanese, Chinese, African, Polish, etc. That’s a fact.
Fact Two: I knew the African students at University of Hawaii in the 60’s, not a one would use Negro, their answer on race was always “African”. Remember they did not use American Terms!
She may not have. Vital Statistics would take the information and compile it according to their procedures. Because of the statement of the campaign staffer which conflicts with a previous statement and makes little sense, this kind of unresolved issue has become suspect for me, not the birthplace, which so far supported by the State Department documents.
Dr. Fukino testified under oath that Obama placed a Hawaiian COLB on his campaign web site.
I believe that is the case now (African listed). As for the 1960’s, I am not doubting what race people referred to themselves as. It is what Vital Statistics does with the the information that matters. Codes…
The word ‘African’ is used to describe the baby’s father, Obama Sr. and is provided by the father (or mother), not by the staff.
The accepted racial/ethnic categories you list are for the newborn, not the parents. Obama’s COLB does not list the category that he was ‘assigned’, whatever that may be.
That is still not affirming that it came from her office. And if that is what she meant, her office called whether a receipt existed for the transaction “private.” Existence of a receipt private but blabbing all other information is not.
I wonder if it would be a breach of HIPAA if Fukino stated that Obama was born in a hospital (not a specific one) just a hospital.
That is a logical argument, Keith, one that I considered. It also occurred to me that since Vital Statistics used those categories of race for the child, it would also be done for the parents for uniformity. The whole matter is suspect when there is a statement that Obama wanted to put the issue to rest when there was no issue about his citizenship in 2007 and the campaign never gave that as a reason at the time.
Where else would it come from? Fukino said the iinformation on the COLB matches the records on file. Is your story that the campaign forged a COLB that says EXACTLY what a real COLB from Hawaii wouuld say? Is that honestly what you are reduced to?
“Is that honestly what you are reduced to”
.
now that is really funny!
“no issue about his citizenship in 2007 ”
there was an issue on McCain’s citizenship, if I were Obama I would paly it safe!
Where are you getting that statement? Here is what is in the article:
“The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity”
There is no statement regarding why the birth certificate was ordered, even though it seems a perfectly reasonable thing for a campaign to do. Have you ever worked on a Presidential campaign? It seems quite reasonable that assembling documents like birth certifcates, tax returns, financial records, etc. would be standard practice.
According to you, ordering a birth certificate is supicious. Also, not ordering a birth certificate is suspicious. Is this honestly what you are reduced to?
What would happen to her if she said directly, the copy of the COLB came from my office. Would Obama sue her, have the AG bring charges? She won’t say it is from her office. And she never said all of the information matched what was in the records. She said that he has a valid certificate in the basement (or wherever) and what is on the intebrnet is the kind of COLB people get.
A record that a request was made on or about that date was denied. That’s so private.
Charo:
“The whole matter is suspect when there is a statement that Obama wanted to put the issue to rest when there was no issue about his citizenship in 2007 and the campaign never gave that as a reason at the time.”
“The whole matter is suspect”
Really? Don’t you think you are attaching too much importance to an unnamed staffer’s comments, while ignoring the meat of the matter?
Again, explain how an unnamed Obama staffer’s comments undermine anything attested to by the official Hawaiian records keeper?
You must realize how silly this looks to the average rational person who does not have an emotional investment in getting rid of the scary man in the White House.
Someone please point out to scientist this comment from the article:
(Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense
[his citizenship was not at issue in 2007)
He doesn’t seem to believe me.
Charo:
“What would happen to her if she said directly, the copy of the COLB came from my office.”
It’s obvious you never read her sworn testimony. You should do so.
And again, she said that the Obama campaign placed his Hawaiian COLB on his campaign site. Where else would a Hawaiian COLB come from? Did she really have to say it? Is this honestly what you are reduced to?
😉
What was the previous statement that was conflicting?
“Is this honestly what you are reduced to?”
your answer to charo’s babbling was funny,thanks for the humor!
Don’t you think you are attaching too much importance to an unnamed staffer’s comments,
It was such an insignificant comment???
Gotta go. Scientist just scares me so much that I have to run off. Isn’t that what I do? High tail it out? Pray to my statues?
lol
I think “testy” probably comes into the story merely as the explanation as to why the now-anonymous campaign official has a clear recollection of the sequence of events in 2007, as part of the answer to “how can you remember the detail sof something that happened 4 years ago?”
Then there is no reason to deny people an answer as to whether someone requested a COLB because that is so private that she testified about it. I say she hedged, but hey, if she didn’t, how is whether someone requested the COLB private?
Gotta go for sure…
It is insignificant AND unrelated to what Dr. Fukino said.
( which utterly destroyed the last remaining hopes the birthers had of seeing the scary dark man frog-marched out of “their” White House. )
She con firmed the one released by the obama campaign was “a valid hawai’in Birth certificate” and the one she had was just like it. And you know that which is why you are splitting hairs on the factcheck BC
Fact; the Factcheck BC was the same one scanned by the Obama campaign.
Fact; Dr Fukino had and has better things to do than personally confirm every single picture on the internet just to try and satisfy stupid lunatics that would never ever be satisfied no matter what she said.
She confirmed someone had requested the BC but could not say who due to hawai’in privacy laws. See politifact.
Again splitting hairs as “just giving you what you want” would require people breaking laws to give you, so you can never be satisfied. And even if they did you would invent something new to complain about.
Charo,
The thread you are clinging to right now is really sad. Do you truly believe that you have discovered the key piece of evidence to uncover a conspiracy of epic proportions? Is it not infinitely more likely that you’ve discovered evidence that someone misspoke (as people occasionally do) or conflated two events in regard to an issue that they are unlikely to view dispassionately? How would you react to, say, Lame Cherry’s racist bile if it were directed at you? (I’m guessing that it wouldn’t make you feel all warm inside…). Really, the mental gymnastics required to simultaneously parse all of the statements by Dr. Fukino, et al. while denying that President Obama’s birth certificate is on file with the DOH and legit has got to be beyond the ability of even a birther’s confirmation bias to rationalize, doesn’t it?
http://www.bartleby.com/123/62.html
The UIPA has a process that has to be followed. It’s an open records law. The question was answered “private.” A person is not obligated to follow events to find the answer oneself. If the answer is available and is not private, it must be handed over. Check with Jo Zeepy or Greg as to how the UIPA process works.
I am in trouble now that I kept going here…
“That is still not affirming that it came from her office.”
The state of Illinois was running a special on Hawaiian COLBs and time and campaign funds were tight so . . .
😯
I have that reaction to insane people. Your cherished story has been demolished. You have nothing left of your dream. rather than accept that you clutch at straws that break in the wind. Reading deep meaning into every word said by an “unnamed official” (none of the words are actually attributed to Obama). Reading deep meaning into whether someone is African or Negro, I’m sure coming next will be numerology on the date of birth. Add the digiits in 8/4/61 and you get 19, which is a prime number. Is that honestly what you are reduced to?
As an agnostic, I probably shouldn’t quote the Bible at you, but the verse, “Jesus wept” undoubtedly referred to his anticipation of birthers.
I cam back just for you. Demolished? You didn’t even get the complete quote from the article. At least the others addressed it.
“Reading deep meaning into whether someone is African or Negro, …”
What a slimy “human” you are (I even used your preferred race).
I am always impressed by an indirect comment with no link.
it appears that handling truth is not a birther strong point!
Straight to the Donald’s ear… (kids want to play some more so I am too)
You should note that I said nothing about you saying anything about a certified long-form.
1 A staffer “misspeaks”- it was the OTHER time a COLB was ordered in 2007-
2. 1961 used codes for races; now we don’t-
3. receipts are private but all of the information on a birth certificate is not- nothing to see here
I was demolished!
I don’t attach any importance whatever to them.
Your birther dreams are dead, they are demised, they have rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible, they are deceased, they have gone to meet their maker, they have shuffled off this mortal coil, they are pushing up the daisies, they are no more.
I am sure you will tell us they are “just resting” though..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218
No, they didn’t use race codes for PARENTS in 1961.
Doc, it seems that Charo is emotionally vested in NOT understanding what you are saying…
She already answered. In public. Under oath.
How many confirmations of things already confirmed is reasonable?
There goes all of my purpose in life… those statues just didn’t come through…
That is not an answer to a UIPA request. That is not how it is done.
Correct. The reason for publishing the BC in the first place was to show people that his middle name was ‘Hussein’, not ‘Mohammad’. A stupid rumor that, it was thought, could be simply ‘put to rest’ by showing the BC. Funny how well that worked out, and you really think somehow getting Hawai’i to break it’s own state law is going to improve anything?.
My theory on why he ordered the birth certificate in 2007 was because he and/or his campaign knew that if he won the nomination the Democratic Party was going to have to issue sworn affidavits to all states (or many of them anyway) confirming his eligibility. No party official should be put in the position of perjuring themselves, so they made sure they had the evidence. It is exactly the kind of fore-planning that the campaign staff is paid to do.
Either Obama didn’t have a copy from earlier in his life, or his copy was tattered or damaged in such a way that he thought it would be best to obtain a new copy, or he simply wanted to leave a copy on file with the campaign while he kept his personal copy.
I don’t mean as in coding the birth certificate, but when the form was filled out, do you think the sensibilities of the individual were taken into account in 1961? If the mother said my husband is African, would the nurse write that classification down or put what she was used to putting? Or if the application was filled out by the patient herself, would the final certificate be written with the exact words used?
I am thinking 1961.
N+1, apparently.
Charo, you still have your answer, even if she didn’t use your magical words in your magical forum.
No one has put forth this yet, but it is possible the AUTHOR twisted what was said for his purpose of writing the article. It could be that the staffer said he wanted to put the Muslim issue to rest and the author used “putting the issue to rest” with the birther issue because it fit in better.
You have no idea what the UIPA is, do you?
You have no idea what reality is, do you?
No, they didn’t use race codes for PARENTS in 1961.
here is a link to a long form that lists father’s race as “Hawaiian, Chinese, Korean, English, Portugese” MY daughter’s shows mother as “Japanese”, Father as “Polish” races?
.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1646821495774&set=a.1086340484099.2013840.1394022018&theater#!/photo.php?fbid=1648483537324&set=a.1086340484099.2013840.1394022018&theater&pid=31365835&id=1394022018
I have a comment in moderation. A word must be triggering it. I’ll try again.
The author could have manipulated what the staffer said to fit his article. Maybe the staffer said he wanted to put the Musl*m issue to rest but that was left out and the comment was put into a different context.
I’m not on Facebook so I can’t log in.
Dr Fukino is far more familiar with it than you are. If she had a question, she got adviice from the Attorney General. What legal authority backs your interpretation? The courts have backed the State of Hawaii’s interpretation. Doc just wrote about a very recent decision http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/hawaii-court-rejects-latest-birther-appeal/
You seem to feel you know more about law than lawyers, more about science than scientists, more about history than historians, more about every field of human endeavor than those who spend their lives training and practicising in those fields. All, hail, charo!!
Well, we are falling for Charo’s birther tactic of getting us to ignore the substance of how birtherism was demolished today and trying to make us focus on pointless & unrelated minutia.
Didn’t Alan Booths 1981 long form bc say his mother (Miki Booth) was Caucasian/Japanese? and father was Caucasian/Hawaiian?
But his short form say that his mother was Japanese and father was Hawaiian?
Do you think it’s just possible that, since Stanley Ann was in labor and likely under sedation (they did that back then), that Barack Sr. filled out the paperwork and listed his race as African? Of course it’s not provable after so many years, but it makes intuitive and rational sense.
That’s a difference between the discussion here and that between normal people. In the normal world people don’t think that others talk in code, or focus on what someone didn’t say while ignoring what they did say.
I must say that this article “made my day.” In the grand scheme of things, it means absolutely nothing since it only adds confirmation to something already well-known. Nevertheless, it forces birthers further into the fringe, which is where they belonged from the beginning.
It’s sort of an epiphany for me, the realization that birther arguments have become so absurd on the face of it, that they don’t require refutation.
Professionals don’t make up stuff. For your view to make any sense you basically have to claim that every nurse must have ignored their training, and that it was highly implausible for anyone to accurately record what the parent reported. That’s silly.
Right there with you Doc – this thread has been a lot more enjoyable and I think that you put your finger on the reason.
Charo,
Face it, the point you are trying to argue is of no significance whatsoever – don’t you have better things to do?
That’s possible but speaking generally, the vast majority of forms are filled out by the mother after the baby is born.
If it’s on file in the department, then is ‘SHALL’ be furnished.
Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office is full of crap.
Furthermore a certified image copy or a copy of ALL the contents is ALL that is acceptable as ‘for all purposes the same as the original’.
A COLB is a ‘part thereof’ and thus excluded from being considered for all purposes the same as the original/
HRS 338-13
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of ANYcertificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
Dr. C. – is Mr. Wisch’s point that if you want the original vital record, you can not have it. It has to stay in the DOH. You can come look at it but that’s all. But he is not saying that if you want a copy of it, they will not get you one?
“or any part thereof.”
COLB?
It has been an interesting week. First Rush tosses the birthers under the bus and then the Republican appointed former Hawaiian Official, no longer constrained by the necessary bureaucratic table manners, drops another bomb (at least to the birthers, since for rational folk, it was a duh). Is this the republican bash on birthers week?
That’s not what the DOH spokeswoman Okubo told Politifact.com,
“When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called “long” and “short” forms.
“They’re just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.”
“There’s only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it’s been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.
“When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That’s the birth certificate.” “
I think you have the first part right. He is saying that the Health Department never releases the original. But he also says in the interview: “Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied.” That would seem to be a direct contradiction of the statute.
Chance and incompetence: the meat and potatoes of conspiracy theorists.
I would think I would feel more comfortable if that part had also been a direct quote.
Let’s summarize:
A birther discovered the Health Statistics Bureau entries in the newspapers, announcing the birth.
A birther ordered and obtained the birth index which includes a entry for the birth.
A birther discovered that Obama Sr. attended the 1961 summer session at the University of Hawaii, with the final day of classes on August 4.
A birther, obtained State Department records through a FOIA request containing a reference to Lolo Soetoro’s stepson, young Barack, indicating that its investigation showed the child was American-born.
Pretty good track record, don’t you think?
My favorite Rush Limbaugh/Birther quote is “El Rushbo” comparing Barack Hussein Obama to Jesus of Nazareth!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NmcSowSfTk
And what is the name of the attending doctor???
I rest my case.
One thing for sure it is not James Ang’awa.
Case closed.
Wow, you’re not even interesting enough for anyone to debunk you – that’s a new low for you, isn’t it? 😉
For the record I was referring the bulls–t report from earlier today about the “Former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, made this stunning revelation in an interview with NBC”
What is so “stunning” about the “revelation”?
Again, WHAT IS THE DOCTOR’S NAME?
Do you get it know?
There is no long form Hawaiian birth certificate for Obama. At best there is an affidavit of birth.
I expected better from the people on Doc’s blog.
You people are like little sheep that will believe anything that your owner tells you.
Tell Dr. Chiyome Fukino to cough up the doctor’s name or shut the pie hole up.
Again, I rest my case.
PS. what’s next, Obama tells you that he’s got the birth certificate in his pocket but he can’t pull it to show you but he can assure that it’s a long form birth certificate with an attending doctor? Then you write a story about claiming that the rumors have now been squashed and that Obama really does have a long form Hawaiian bc???
You people are like little children. Lol! I have lost all respect for the posters on this forum. I like university style debate but that is no longer possible here.
Peace my little children. Lol!
Sorry Mr. Smith, but real debate cannot happen unless both sides have merit – your side does not (as evinced by the birthers’ perfect court record…). While I’m sure that everyone here is all broken up that the’ve lost the respect of someone as credible as yourself, the fact is that you (and all of the other birhters) are the reason we can’t carry on the ‘university style debate’ that you would like.
Sorry…it’s hard to take someone serious when they publicly reveal their lust for Orly in the form of an ebay painting that looks like something Gauguin crapped on a canvas after swallowing a Picasso lithograph.
and it’s probably a forgery!!
Quote from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics
“What he got, everybody got,” said Fukino. “He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.”
“It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorized such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer-generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.”
But what about this?
HDoH DOES issue ‘long form’ CertifiCATEs of Live Birth.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/
Not true, Mr. Wisch. A friend of mine filled out the appropriate state form and received back a “certificate of live birth” as shown below:
http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-form-BC-from-Hawaii-344×450.jpg
Why doesn’t it have a raised seal?
It’s what the HRS states that matters.
i.e. a COLB is excluded from being ‘considered for all purposes the same as the original’
Do you have a problem reading the statute?
Here, I will dumb it down for you.
HRS 338-13
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health SHALL, upon request, furnish to any applicant a
(A) certified copy of any certificate, [an image copy of the original held on file] or
(B) the contents of any certificate, [ALL the contents, because the following is a part] or
(C) any part thereof. [a COLB]
(b) Copies of THE CONTENTS of ANY certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
[it goes without saying that an image copy of the original is for all purposes the same as the original, so we have (b) stating that only a long form (ALL the contents) is considered for all purposes the same as the original, to the exclusion of a ‘part thereof’ i.e. a COLB]
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
Bottom line is that a COLB is not good enough and YES HDoH DOES issue ALL the contents (aka a ‘long form’) as is evidenced by the one Miki Booth has posted here.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/
http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-form-BC-from-Hawaii-344×450.jpg
HRS 338-13
§338-13 Certified copies. [here they are telling you that the next section gives you the definition of a certified copy](a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health SHALL, upon request, furnish to any applicant a
(A) certified copy of any certificate, [an image copy of the original held on file] or
(B) the contents of any certificate, [ALL the contents, because the following is a part] or
(C) any part thereof. [a COLB]
[This part tells you what qualifies as a certified copy][The use of the word “or”tells you that any of these meets the definition of a certified copy]
Oh, on those long form certificates, they look like they have an issue date of March 15, 2001.
My guess, MichaelN, is two things…
1: Either they are lying and manufacturing evidence (as is apparent on the so-called certified birth certificate – There is an image that was put up 2 days after the birth certificate was supposedly issued with absolutely no date on it, and no seal, and yet everything else is virtually the same. If that happened with Barack Obama’s, you’d all be screaming bloody murder.)
2. Fukino is actually talking about a certified copy, which is what would be required for legal precedings. There is absolutely no process to legally obtain a certified copy of a long-form birth certificate. And before you point me to the manufactured one, there are some serious questions about it, including why the Post and Email published a copy of the birth certificate on March 17 without the signature and date-stamp, when the current one was supposedly issued 2 days before.
I don’t know, maybe because it’s a .jpg copy posted on the internet, maybe Miki will be kind enough to take an angle shot.
“(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.”
Is there an official requirement for a raised seal?
Not that I can find.
“§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual’s social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]”
Of course they are all to be certified issues.
So what?
Take a closer look it is 2011
Well, if you want to use it for anything other then a wallhanging such as to get a passport, yes it has to have a raised seal. It is one of those security devices. Like being printed on security paper, which is clear on this image.
Cite the statute of regulation that requires a raised seal.
Here’s an article that discusses and shows the anomalies with Hawaiian ‘raised seals’.
http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/unveiling-the-hdoh-seal/
Compare this official copy of a raised seal provided by Hawaiian Dept of Health
http://obamasgarden.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/embossedsealnoted1.jpg?w=490&h=440
With this as shown on Obama’s alleged HDoH issued COLB
http://obamasgarden.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/obamaclose1.jpg?w=659&h=486
“§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health”
and here is the ‘respective standard certificate as recommended’
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/United_States_long_form_birth_certificate.gif/461px-United_States_long_form_birth_certificate.gif
Source
The image is taken from a report entitled “The 1989 Revision of the U.S. Standard Certificates and Reports” (Series 4, No. 28), issued by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. The entire report can be viewed in full at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_04/sr04_028.pdf, which is hosted by a U.S. federal government website.
Author
United States federal government
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_long_form_birth_certificate.gif
“shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics,”
Of three ‘certified copies’, it is only the ‘contents’ which clearly means ALL the contents, that is considered for all purposes the same as the original.
A certified ‘part thereof’ (aka a COLB) is excluded.
MichaelN & Lucas, that was quite a public cry you both just had. Feel better? I always did after a good cry and a nappy.
MichaelN, why don’t you run for some public office in Hawaii? Why are you wasting your time elsewhere when you already know more about Hawaiian law and procedures more than Hawaiian Governors, Attorneys General, Judges, and DOH officials. Just think about how much they could learn from you!
I’d Just like to say the the birds are singing outside my window and I’m making Cinnamon rolls. Yummy.
I, roadburner, cannot help but find this somewhat amusing.
Eisenhower never had his birth recorded. When he ran for the presidency, a birth certificate had to be made up out of scratch. Ike himself had always claimed he was born at Tyler, Texas but now suddenly, his mother remembered it was Denison, Texas – the place they moved to from Tyler. Ike’s brother, who had been 4 at the time, signed as a witness.
Only, a few years ago, a document appeared showing Ike’s father bought a house in Tyler shortly after Ike’s birth. The question is of course: why did Ike’s father buy a house in a town that they had left? It seems obvious that the Eisenhowers lived in Denison for a very short time before going (back) to Kansas and Ike’s mother was simply mistaken.
Although an argument has been made that it is actually the date that is wrong.
http://www.whale.to/b/eisenhower1.html
(the biography of Eisenhower that mentions the house being bought is on Google Books, I’ve quoted a few times already)
Nothing to do with eligibility of course. The fact that Eisenhower was German by direct descent and no one ever got grandfathered in (because of the relevant German forefather of Ike being 71 when he fathered the next in Ike’s line) is more interesting for the birfer argument. Ike was “capable of acquiring foreign citizenship” (I am using Borderaven’s terminology on Obama here) from birth until he joined the US army.
This is a technical point. The Statute refers to the form on which a birth is registered, not the form of a certified copy. Now explain why the Nordyke certificate doesn’t match the standard you cited.
I think some posters here have been well and fully owned or perhaps the better word is pwned. It does seem to have come down to a binary choice: Dr. Fukino is lying or you are.
I downloaded the BC from the Mikki Booth article at the Pee and Eee and enhanced the contrast. The date looks much more like “2001” than “2011” to me. A higher res image would confirm this, of course. Also, why couldn’t Mikki Booth (or Terry Lakin for that matter) obtain a long form copy for her child? If this BC copy is from 2001 it may be one of the last obtained before the department switched to laser printed COLB’s exclusively. These birther’s are devious and desperate!
http://i56.tinypic.com/vyv0qp.jpg
I am trying to confirm that Alvin T. Onaka was the Registrar of Vital Statistics on that date in 2001. He has been with the department for 40 years so I am fairly sure he was. Maybe Doc C could confirm?
When coming to a conclusion, it is necessary to do a reality check at the end, in case you made some mistakes in the deduction. If your conclusion is absurd, you made a mistake.
The first implication of your conclusion is that all current Hawaiian certified copies are not valid birth certificates. That’s absurd. The second contradiction is the fact that even the Mimi certificate is not the whole certificate as specified by the US Standard certificate, but a photographically cropped subsection. This is more evident comparing the old Danae certificate with the new one (the newer one is cropped to show more). The fact that pretty much every certificate issued in the country has certain information omitted (e.g. number of other births of the mother), you are not only concluding that the COLB is invalid but every birth certificate.
Next time, perhaps you should have Sherely the Frenchman check your work.
The dissonance is horribly painful in those little birther craniums today.
But MichaelN….how does this all fold into your personal and ridiculous interpretation of Calvins Case ……….suckah
Oh, by the way, as an Australian, according to your birfoon mate Nancy1 you have no right to participate in these conversations so shut up, sit down and sod off.
When it comes to Lucas Smith I’d go with the latter of the two Doc
What is this the 8th time you’ve said you were leaving Lucas? I’m surprised though it took you another week before you had another meltdown. I think you’re losing it.
Wouldn’t this particular section be more reasonably “dumbed down” like this?
HRS 338-13
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health SHALL, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of
(A) any certificate, or
(B) the contents of any certificate, or
(C) any part thereof.
You are indeed correct. That is the formula for the amount of confirmations NC1 needs. Its obvious by now it’s plus one for whatever is presented at any given time.
My count is 7 but hey who is counting? We all know he will be back.
BTW, whatever happened to Ron “I see shadows” Polland?
Of course a con artist is pissed when overnight one of his scams drops like a stone in value to potential gullible birther marks.
Statements from reputable authorities makes it harder for the grifter to steal from people.
> The dissonance is horribly painful in those little birther craniums today.
Probably because their feeble minds are on their own until their “masterminds” (using the term very loosely here) have come up with the proper memes to feed to them.
The newest Fukino statements are hard to ignore (and birfers know well that “she’s lying” is not going to cut it with the public) and until someone tells them how to spin it this time, they have to try for themselves – and it’s funny to see how utterly they fail at it.
1) 28 USC 1739.
2) Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1).
3) The requirements for “A certified birth certificate” at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
Turns out the birthers were lying and Obama’s COLB is a state record that invokes the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, a domestic public document under seal that is admissible as a self-authenticating document, and a certified birth certificate that proves U.S. citizenship by birth.
This assertion is, at best, unsubstantiated speculation.
It would be most problematic to treat the mere capacity to acquire foreign nationality as rendering someone ineligible for the Presidency.
I and countless others have noted here that foreign nationality is a matter of foreign law. Any nation may, subject to its own constitution and laws, make any person one of its nationals. For this reason, the logical consequence of treating foreign nationality as disqualifying is to give each and every foreign state veto power over any and every potential Presidential candidate.
In addition to circumstances in which someone does acquire foreign nationality, there are numerous circumstances where someone is capable of acquiring it on application or taking other steps and chooses not to do so. I know several US citizens who have had indefinite leave to remain in the UK long enough to obtain British citizenship on application but have not yet chosen to apply. They would unquestionably be rendered ineligible to be President if mere potential to be a dual national were disqualifying. However, there is an interesting question about those whose circumstances could qualify them for residence in a foreign country and potential citizenship but have not taken any steps toward such residence.
There are many people who have money or skills that would qualify them for UK visas that could lead to indefinite leave and eligibility for naturalisation. Are nearly all multi-millionaires ineligible to be President because they have the ability to obtain Tier 1 (Investor) visas that could eventually lead to indefinite leave to remain in the UK and eligibility for naturalisation?
Anyone of good character (i.e.,no criminal record) is eligible to become a citizen of the Carribbean island nation of Dominica. The cost for an individual is <$100,000 US, a sum that anyone in a position to make a serious run for President can come up with. It does not require one ever to reside there, it simply takes a brief visit for an interview, You do not need to renounce any other citizenships and passports you have. The government of Dominica will keep the fact that you are a citizen completely confidential.
It is thus the case that any presidential candidate could have current, active citizenship in Dominica (something of more concern than a right they may have held as a minor and allowed to lapse), and there is no way for them or the US government or anyone else to prove either way.
Dr. Fukino emphasized: “It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that.” She reiterated that computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.
Standard birther response: “But no state official has confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii!”
Standard birther response: “But no state official has confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii!”
Complete idiots at this point.
Yes – and they have LOST 90+ cases in a row in US courtrooms – with all lower court decisions upheld upon review on appeals.
They must have the worst record in US history for failing.
Now Dr. Fukino has restated everuthing that was said two plus years ago by people on this board.
So what is left birthers?
What are you going to do now?
LOL
Slartibartfast said:
Which Republican candidates do you mean? Donald Trump? Which Republican candidates do you suspect were not be born in a hospital and would not have a long form birth certificate?
Bob
“§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.”
“(a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape…..
“(b) The official seal of the department of health shall be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify commissions of appointment of deputy directors and notaries public,certificates, and other formal official documents on which the official seal has been customarily used or is appropriate to be used, as the director of health may determine on a case-by-case basis.”
http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/11-1.pdf
Possibly all of them, since none have shown a “long-form birth certificate” or any birth certificate at all. I leave out Trump because he is not going to run, hence is not a candidate and the images he showed have yet to be authenticated by any official of new York City. Furthermore, even if Mayor Bloomberg himself vouched for the documents, i would not believe it. Most people in NYC would say almost anything if it got Trump out of town.
Sometimes a known fake item can be worth a considerable amount of money. Not as much as the genuine item, but still enough to get a value meal at McDonalds.
If I were Lucas, I would but that Kenya thing on E-Bay under a description like:
“Own a small piece of history, Own the document that started a nationwide frenzy, Own the document that confounded the experts”. Phrases like that. Who knows, he might get some action.
“Without promotion something terrible happens… Nothing!” P.T. Barnum
I think you will find that many states no longer give out ‘long forms’, but instead have official birth certificates that are similar to the COLB. Depending on the specific requirements of any particular birther bill, (in particular, those designed to exclude President Obama based on the assumption that he wasn’t born in a hospital) President Obama should be able to satisfy them (unless they are blatantly unConstitutional) and other candidates may not be in a position to do so – this would be the political equivalent of using someone’s own strength against them. The birthers (yourself included) would have to accept President Obama and reject anyone who couldn’t meet their standard or have their hypocrisy exposed.
Someone please remind the last birther out to shut off the lights…
Can you state which hospital each of the supposed Republican candidates were born in?
I’m thinking that in 1961 and 2011, overworked nurses have better things to do than debate demographics with their patients.
Birthers remind me of my first encounter with ticks, when I was 7 years old.
I found this thing. I thought it was a spider. I kept stepping on it, crushing it, putting piles of heavy books and sitting on it, yet it didn’t die. This confused me, and I asked my dad why the spider wouldn’t die. He explained to me that ticks are resilient and can’t be crushed; you have to burn them or flush them down the toilet.
Birthers are like normal human beings, except that you can reason with a normal human beings. Birthers just stick to their story no matter how much evidence you throw at them. It doesn’t jibe with my normal perception of reality.
Jules: This has arisen as an issue in the upcoming Canadian election. The leader of the opposition, Michael Ignatieff, was born and raised in Canada, but has lived in the UK and the US for much of his adult life. While he was never a citizen of the UK or the US, as a Commonwealth ciitizen he was allowed to vote in British elections while living in the UK and did so.
While this does not legally bar him from serving as Prime Minister, it’s certainly something that can be (and is being) raised during a political campaign. That seems to me to be the proper way to deal with issues. Let them be put before the voters and let them decide what is important and what is not. Are the birthers saying that Canadians are mature enough to weigh these issues as they cast their votes and Americans aren’t and need legal prohibitions to protect them from themselves?
it’s wont be over until Donald hasn’t finished reading the Internet,
You sound like a “birther”. 😉
Bob
Scientist April 10, 2011 at 4:23 pm
I severely doubt it’s LAW that says a *copy* can’t be released to the person named on the certificate. I strongly suspect it’s merely current Hawaii health department *policy* that they aren’t normally released, the current *policy* being that it’s only the short form released.
Firstly it just doesn’t make sense that the state government would pass a LAW that would say only a copy of the short form certificate could be released and not a copy of the long form. Is the state government going to pass a law specifying each component that is allowed to appear in the short form?
Secondly, on this page Miki Booth shows a long form birth certificate issued to a friend just weeks ago from Hawaii:
“Hawaii Official and Ex-Official Lie to Cover Their Tracks
DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN RAMPS UP IN RESPONSE TO DONALD TRUMP’S ASSERTIONS THAT OBAMA HAS NOT SHOWN A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
by Miki Booth
(Apr. 10, 2011)
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/
Note also Booth makes the charge that the spokesman for the Hawaii Attorney General’s office Joshua Wisch who claimed this information couldn’t be released is a former chairman of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in Hawaii, which raises the possibility he might be covering for Obama.
In any case the Attorney General for Hawaii David M. Louie, a Gov. Neil Abercrombie appointee, needs to come out and correct this incorrect information put out by his spokesman. If not then that raises the question if the top law enforcement official in the state is more concerned with covering for Obama or than with properly informing the public about applicable laws in the state.
We now have two cases where a Hawaii state official in trying to cover for Obama wound up making things worse for him. First, it was governor Neil Abercrombie, now this Atty. Gen. spokesman Joshua Wisch.
Perhaps they should have taken the approach Obama appears to be taking: just take the “fifth”.
Bob
I’m not running for President, but I was born in New York two years after Trump and I have been trying for two months to get a copy of my “long form” birth certificate. Thus far I have been unable to find anyone, either at the state or local level, who can tell me how to get it.
The birth certificate which my parents received a week after I was born contains less information than Obama’s COLB – no hospital name, no name of doctor, no names of witnesses.
I just believe in applying the same standards to all candidates, regardlless of their skin pigmentation, parental origin, religion (real or imagined), height, gender, etc. These rules include:
1. Born in a hospital. This immediately disqualifies all Presidents except Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama
2. They must have a real birth certificate and send a copy to all registered voters. Images on the internet don’t count. All boxes must be filled in and the doctor’s signature must be legible so we can slander him/her if dead or harass him/her if alive. So far, all current and former Presidents and all candidates have failed to quallify.
3.In case anyone makes it past #2, all certificates must be vouched for by an offiicial of the issuing jurisdiction.
4. However, officials have been known to lie, so even if a potential candidate passes #3, they are still disqualified.
That document is lacking a seal. So this is not an official copy. Maybe you can explain why this was released to Post & Email a few days before lacking the stamp and date issued?
Perhaps you can explain why Arizona no longer issues long form certificates to anyone born after 1989.
It is extremely unlikely in the extreme for anyone born in the U.S. in recent decades not to have been born in a hospital or at least have had a midwife present during the delivery. In both cases the person would have a valid long form birth certificate.
Bob
Agreed. I zoomed in on the image and it looks like 2001 to me.
Most states don’t release long forms anymore since most of the records have switched to electronic. Short forms have all the information required on them for being eligible for the President short of the 14 years residency which not even the long form would say.
But I see you didn’t answer my question. I told you to state which hospitals any of the republican candidates were born in. I see that your lack of an answer must mean you don’t know and want to hold Obama to a different standard. At least we know Obama was born at Kapiolani. Which is more than we can say for the Republican candidates.
If she really could speak freely. She could and should have said what was the doctors name and the name of the hospital.
Bob
No disrespect intended to your legal credentials, but I consider the Attorney General of Hawaii more authoritative on the laws of Hawaii than you are. Do you practice law in Hawaii? Anyway, whether law or administrative policy those are the rules Hawaii (and plenty of other states, I would guess) work under. If you move to Hawaii, you can run for AG on a platform of changing their rules.
That’s not a certificate, it’s a pdf of a photo of something. I don’t know who Miki Booth is nor her nameless friend. This is 3rd hand at best. No officiial has ever said that Miki Booth’s nameless friend was born in Hawaii. Completely without value
There is no evidence that what Mr Wisch said is incorrect. Therefore there is no reason for the AG to correct the statement. That is how any reasonable person would interpret the matter as it stands.
What is “extremely unlikely in the extreme”? I have personally met someone who gave birth in a taxi on the way to the hospital. This was in Pennsylvania. Does this child have a long form? I don’t know, but I believe they should be able to run for President either way
Yes, but Bob the birther idiot is quoting from the Post & E-Mail. That must be an authoritative, unbiased source, right? After all, Rondeau, the seditionist of the P & E broke the story about Obama being a shape shifting reptile in all seriousness:
“Even something as simple and elemental as his genetic makeup is question. What went into making the man? Does he have African or Caucasian or Arab DNA or all three*? Then again, even that is irrelevant given the bigger secrets he hides.”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/03/whos-behind-the-mask-of-obama/
*Links within this groundbreaking story reveal “Obama is a Lizard – Reptilian – Alien”:
“I’ve mentioned on my Radio show how I keep seeing Obama and/as a Lizard all over the codes…here’s just one instance..I’ll try to post more soon. I”ve tried to just keep it simple so you can understand what you’re seeing and see the terms involved…”
http://www.hiddencodes.com/obama/index.htm
Another link from the P & E article on Obama the Reptilian Shapeshifter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjLy_obFi60
Hard hitting journalism at its best.
It’s no surprise that a birther fool like Bob would cite the Post & E-Mail as a reliable source.
Rondeau, her friends and her online tabloid, the Post & E-Mail openly advocate a violent, armed overthrow of the U.S. Government. This is sadly typical of the diseased birther mentality.
Just to add one more point. When you’re dealing with government, the actual statutes voted by Congress and State Legislatures are only thhe beginning, not the ennd or their day-to-day operating rules. In my time in the biotech industry, I have dealt with FDA, NIH, the US Patent and Trademark Office, the Dept of Agriculture and several other federal agencies. All of them have myriad rules and procedures that were never specifically voted on by Congress. However, if you deal with those agencies you are bound by all of those strictures. If you don’t like them, you can lobby Congress to specifically overrule them or sue in court. Unless you have a busload of money and many years (even then), good luck to you.
Whether the procedures laid out by the Hawaii DOH and the AG are actual laws or merely agency regs is quite immaterial. They are how those agencies operate. If they say you can’t have a long form b.c, then you can’t have one, no matter what you think the statutes say. If they won’t give Obama one, then he would have to sue them to get one. And I simply don’t think he will or should do that.
Actually, we still don’t know if he was born at Kapiolani or even in a hospital since Fukino didn’t give that info. Perhaps MSNBC can do a follow up interview where she is asked for everything she remembers about his long form birth certificate.
In any case, I severely doubt the other Presidential candidates would have any problem at all revealing the birth hospital and doctor.
Why do I doubt it? Because it makes no sense at all! That’s the overriding reason why I myself am still interested in debating this issue.
Bob
Actually it wasn’t the Atty. Gen. but a spokesman for the office. Essentially a PR guy.
I would be interested in seeing if any one has a link to the laws about releasing birth certificate info. I severely doubt it will say only a short form can be released.
Bob
I was always taught not to use the same adjective in the same sentence
I would say that counts as extremely unlikely in the extreme. In such cases it would be even doubly more extremely unlikely in the extreme if the mother and child were not quickly taken to hospital.
Bob
*sigh* Bob, you merely “see” things you wish to see and have doubts because you deeply want to have doubts. The only reason these issues “make no sense” to you is because they don’t support the results your pre-conceived bias desires.
Back in reality, any legitimate concerns serious people might have had were satisifed a long time ago.
I was attempting to be humorous in my phraseology, but nobody here appreciates my humor.
Bob
That’s because we’re laughing at you, not with you…
And I highly doubt she would answer those questions, as it would be a violation of various state and federal privacy laws. And again, why would any rational person doubt that he was born at Kapiolani, or for that matter, why would anyone even care?
And if they wish to release that information, that’s their perrogative…but to require them to would unconstitutional. Kinda like when both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were asked “boxers of briefs.” Clinton answers, Gingrich berated the questioner for asking stupid questions and wasting everyone’s time. Both are reasonable responses to a stupid question that is of no import.
No, you doubt it because you’re a nutter. What makes no sense at all is why people are still clinging to this delusion without a shred of evidence to support anything but Hawaiian birth.
No I actually laugh when you’re serious about this birther BS you spout. It’s funny because I’ve heard the same concerns for over 2 years that have been repeatedly answered.
While we can all agree that in our modern 21st century first-world nation, hospital births are increasingly the norm and most assuredly more so than they were decades ago, that still doesn’t mean that everyone goes to hospitals or lives near one these days, nor that we can justify creating new laws REQUIRING someone to be born in a hospital in order to retain their citizenship rights, even if such venues for birth are the norm.
You are merely drawing conclusions based on your gut feelings and perceptions of an issue, without any actual data to make that determination. It is one thing to say that such births are less likely and less common today. It is a much further stretch to just claim “extremely unlikely in the extreme”. Now you are just making up your own conclusions, without any data to back it up.
Your need to go beyond a reasonable conclusion and have to claim something is nearly impossible in order to justify to yourself the weakest of exclusionary loopholes, in faint hopes that maybe, just maybe that could be used against Obama, is awfully desperate and pathetic.
Not only would it be bad law and unnecessary to add such restrictions on citizenship in general, but also it would ultimately fail to achieve any real birther goals – Although birthers are now increasingly desperate to cling to any small scrap of hope, there is no realistic evidence that Obama wasn’t born in a hospital, just like all the existing information indicates. In the end, if such crazy restrictions were added, only other potential and future candidates would be face potential harm from such laws. Obama would be just fine.
We know that he was born there because Kapiolani claimed such at their anniversary. They published the letter saying he was born there. So yes we do know that. We do not know which hospital Gingrinch, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, etc were born in.
So again which hospitals were they born in?
If that is the applicable law then clearly it is not making any distinction between any short form or long form that can be released to the public.
We are still left with the fact it is just current *policy* to just release the short form.
Bob
Please read and then re-read and then read again my post from 2:43 PM. Government agencies have whole books full of regulations, policies and procedures that are not encoded into the statutes. As long as they don’t specifically contradict statute, they are perfectly valid. Mr Wisch is trying to get it through your skull what rules the Hawaii DOH operates under, some of which are NOT codifiied in the statutes (see above).
Those rules are that you cannot get a long-form to go. In-house dining only. Unless you can swear to me that you are a lawyer admitted to the bar in Hawaii, practicing in the area of Health law, I am going to believe Mr Wisch and not you.
Virtually everything government does in the day to day is policy not codified in the statutes. The fact that this is current policy means that you can’t get a long form,I can’t get a long form and Barack Obama can’t get a long form. No matter how much you dislike the policy or wish to pretend it doesn’t exist it does.
Take an example. When you apply for a passport, the dimensions of the photo are speciified. Did Congress vote on that? Of course not. What happens if you show up with an 8″ x 10″ picture of yourself? No passport for you.
Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 3:14 pm Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote) #
Robert Clark: Actually, we still don’t know if he was born at Kapiolani or even in a hospital since Fukino didn’t give that info. Perhaps MSNBC can do a follow up interview where she is asked for everything she remembers about his long form birth certificate.In any case, I severely doubt the other Presidential candidates would have any problem at all revealing the birth hospital and doctor.Why do I doubt it? Because it makes no sense at all! That’s the overriding reason why I myself am still interested in debating this issue.Bob
We know that he was born there because Kapiolani claimed such at their anniversary. They published the letter saying he was born there. So yes we do know that. We do not know which hospital Gingrinch, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, etc were born in.
So again which hospitals were they born in?
I don’t know what hospital they were born in, nor am I a health department official or election official. I’m fairly sure they have drivers licenses; that doesn’t mean I know what their drivers license number is.
In regards to Obama being born in Kapiolani that so called White House letter to Kapiolani still has not been confirmed as being from them. Now, Gov. Abercrombie won’t talk about the letter either because the White House won’t talk about it. What can he say? Yes I did get the letter from the White House, when the White House won’t admit? Or perhaps he could say instead, “No I didn’t get it from the White House. I faked White House stationary and forged Obama’s signature.”
What the hell is this? It’s just a letter that tells what hospital you were born in. It’s not like it details the U.S. plans for responding to rogue nations acquiring nuclear weapons.
Bob
Why would a Republican Governor who campaigned for John McCain and delivered one of Sarah Palin’s endorsement speeches at the Republican National Convention deliberately lie to protect Barack Obama?
Governor Lingle said that Obama was born at Kapiolani and she obviously got that information from Dr. Fukino and Dr. Onaka’s visits to look at Obama’s vault copy birth records.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
Why don’t you write a book about the things you don’t know. I’m sure it would be fascinating reading. It might even turn out to be the largest book ever written.
You should release a whole set of encyclopedia brittanicas written by Bob Clark of information you don’t know because at this point it’s becoming quite obvious that you like to opine on stuff you can speak with absolutely no authority on.
So you don’t know what hospital they were born in. Congratulations you know a lot more about Obama than you do about them. Obama has a drivers license as well and a passport.
Really you think someone would willingly forge white house letterhead? You do know that would be a criminal offense. Letters on White House letterhead are self evident. The point is that the hospital in question used it at their anniversary celebration. So are you claiming now that the hospital was in error?
Not only that, but have the Governor of the state read the forged letter on state TV AND put the letter on its website, Thereby publicly announcing this criminal offense and forgery to the world, and giving evidence for any future prosecution. Homehow I don’t see that happening because I really doubt that the lawyers for that hospital are of the caliber of Orly Taitz.
Oh yeah, the White House has not yelled to get that forgery off the Hospital website either.
Oh yeah the white house must be in on the conspiracy to allow forged white house documents out into the public!!
And why aren’t you demanding to know? I mean if you’ve seen them driving, how do you know they’re not breaking the law. As for the President, I know he was born in Hawaii, because I’ve seen an images of his birth certificate. I’ve seen the confirmation of the fact by the state officials of Hawaii, I’ve seen the letter he wrote to the hospital that he believes he was born in, and I’ve the now governor read that letter, and, of course, I really don’t care what hospital he was born in, as long as he was born in the US, and there is little doubt of that fact.
And why exactly does the White House need to confirm it? Do you think they have nothing better to do than to keep answering stupid birther questions? And what do you want Gov. Abercrobie to say? He just read the letter (and it wasn’t sent to him, it was sent to the hospital). The hospital isn’t exactly hiding from the letter (they’ve used it in fundraising and have published images of it). You seem to mistake have total disdain for birthers as meaning anything more than the White House treating birthers anything more than the butt of a joke.
Exactly. Which is why it is being treated as the non-issue it is. You seem to be under the assumption that everything relating to the nativity story of the President has to be confirmed, and re-confirmed 5 different ways. The President sent a letter. End of story.
This birther fool’s obsessions and ranting are borderline paranoid and psychotic.
He keeps babbling that it’s insignificant and no big deal but HE MUST KNOW NOW ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Holy crap, how about it’s really NOHFB and this birther should get help for OCD?
That and a good slap and tickle from Ockham’s Razor.
He’s like smeagol or should i say gollum
Smeagol: Leave now, and never come back!
Gollum: No!
Smeagol: Leave now, and never come back!
[Gollum screams in frustration]
Smeagol: LEAVE! NOW! AND NEVER COME BACK!
[Gollum is silent]
Smeagol: [looks around] We told him to go away… and away he goes, Precious! Gone, gone, gone! Smeagol is free!
hey i know. maybe Obama wrote a forged letter from Obama to Kaapiolani and that’s why the are keeping mum, to avoid the scandal of admitting he wrote a fake letter from himself.
That kind of thing can get you thrown in jail you know.
Suranis,
You have now created the next Birfoon Meme…. 😎
“I see you’ve constructed a new lightsaber”
I notice Rondeau has buried the Miki Booth article. I wonder if someone tipped her off that the long birth certificate was issued in 2001 and not 2011?
Do birthers ever think about the damage they could do?
If the doctor is still alive, the name should definitely be withheld unless he or she gives informed consent to release it. Birthers have heaped derision and harassment on everyone who answers their questions. The doctor would be elderly now, and should not have to deal with the pestering and smearing for the crime of delivering a particular baby almost 50 years ago.
Did you see this? http://www.geekologie.com/2011/03/british_believe_in_lightsabers.php
If you kind people will permit me, i would like to summarize what we have learned and hopefully close out this thread:
1. President Obama’s birth certificate was signed by a doctor. This means he was either born in a hospital in Hawaii, born outside a hospital in Hawaii with a doctor in attendance or born outside a hospital in Hawaii without a doctor in attendance, but examined by a doctor prior to Aug 8, 1961. The “Born in Kenya and registered on Aug 8, 1961 by Granny without any verification” hypothesis is defiinitively and completely killed.
2. Hawaii does not currently issue long-form certificates. While statute probably does not forbid them from doing so, they have chosen not to issue them, something which they are entirely within their rights to do. If the President wanted to satisfy the birthers (why should he?), the best he could do is, on his next visit to the Aloha State, walk into the DOH, examine his certificate in the files and come out and tell us all, “I looked at my original certifiicate. I was indeed born in Hawaii.” That’s the end of the story.
Half n Half
.
A-ha, we finally have the absolute, irrefutable, un-impeachable (pun intended), un-usurpable (pun intended) proof to frog walk that Terrorist-Coddling, Warmongering, Wall Street-Loving, Socialistic, Godless Muslim Usurperist out of the Whitehouse because:
.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino said, ‘“she found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.”’
.
“That’s REALLY significant! Because, if half of his Birth Certificate is handwritten, then that implies changes to the original certificate! This happens in adoptions, or when changes to the original are requested.”
.
All kidding aside, that is the spin (er, I mean FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, we win you lose – we are close to our orgasmic moment of de-blackeny…) being put forth at FR (Fanatic Republic):
.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2703020/posts
.
After reading the post and informed eloquent responses there I am ready to give up, they are too clever for us – all hope is lost, frog walk is eminent. Y’all fight on without me, I’m going to cover my “Obama/Biden” stickers with “Defund NPR” stickers now while I still have time to disguise my political affiliations before the impending “you traitors will pay for this” purge begins.
Charo finally came out as full-on birther.
I wish we could close it, but birthers are fairly resistant to virtually all known forms of logic. Let me put on my pretend birther hat and see what logical leaps I can concoct to maintain the claim that there are still “questions” to be answered:
1. Fukino may be lying because she’s a lib-ruhl or because she was handsomely paid off or threatened by the Obama people (or by Lingle/Abercombie). Perhaps Obama’s grandmother forged a doctor’s signature on it. Perhaps Stanley Dunham brought the long-form with her to Kenya so that the Kenyan doctor could sign it. (Then she could obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate under the make-believe foreign registration law in 1961.)
2. Hawaii refuses to offer long-form certificates just to protect Obama. Obama could visit the Vital Records department and then falsely claim to have seen his birth certificate, and state officials would be prohibited from confirming or denying his account under state law.
I’m going to have to stop there. This pretzel logic is starting to give me a headache. (But I’m sure some authentic birther will be willing to pick up the slack.)
The birther penchant for concocting endlessly complex ways to explain the obvious reminds me of the seven-year-old who gets caught standing next to the cookie jar with a cookie in his hand. Mom says, “put the cookie back!”
Little Junior says, “but Ma, I didn’t take the cookie!” No, some flying saucer landed in the back yard and a bunch of little green martians got out. They had come to Planet Earth to look for sugar confections. When they raided the kitchen for the cookies, Junior bravely called the police. When the police showed up, the LGM panicked, dropped the cookies and flew away in the spacecraft. The policeman was so proud of Junior’s quick action in calling the police that he wanted to give Junior a key to the city. Out of his selflessness, Junior asked only that he be given one of the cookies as a token of gratitude.
According to Junior, that’s how he wound up holding the cookie.
Again? She was a birther the whole time
The bottom portion of the certificate is comprised of signatures with dates. If Obama’s certificate had been amended, then the COLB would by law have to say “ALTERED” which it does not.
Further, no matter what kind of amendment were made on the certificate, Obama was still born in the United States and therefore there is no grounds for frog-walking the President out of office.
I would not describe the COLB as a “short form”. There’s no consensus definition of what a “short form” is insofar as what information must be present to make a form short or long. In South Carolina the state describes their computer-generated form as a “long form” even though it is pretty much the same content as Hawaii’s COLB. In Hawaii, only one form is issued, and there is no form shorter or longer than the standard form. Therefore I consider it misleading to call the Hawaii certificate a “short form.”
Further, over 95% of births are reported electronically these days, so there are no physical hospital forms, but rather computer records with about 400 data items (mostly medical information) a few of which comprise the birth certificates states issue.
I think she was actually pasting some other birther’s statement. The writing style of that screed, including the language doesn’t match with her previous posts. I think those are someone else’s words she was sharing here.
I usually defer to your expertise, but having experience in California, I thought that they did it with a fairly short standard paper form. California has a substantial part of the US population and births Were you referring to the US, worldwide, or perhaps something in between?
Would a typical practice include a combination of electronic data transfer plus a paper form with a subset of the non-signature information?
The 1961 birth certificate (based on 1956 standard) has a lot less information.
Birth Information:
Name of child
Sex
Date of birth
Place of birth:
Name of hospital
Street and number if not in hospital
City, town, or location of birth
Inside city limits
County of birth
Birth weight
Multiple birth
Birth order if not single birth
Mother information
Maiden name
Age
Birthplace (State or country)
Residence
State
County
City, town, or location
Street and number
Inside city limits
Is residence on a farm?
Mother’s mailing address
Race
Legitimate
Father information
Name
Age
Birthplace (State or country)
Race
Usual occupation
Nature of industry
Pregnancy information
Pregnancy history:
Live births, now living
Live births, now dead
Born dead(stillborn, fetal death)
Length of pregnancy (completed weeks)
Certification information
Signature of certifier
Type of attendant
Date signed
Date on which given name was added
Name of registrar adding given name
Address of certifier
Signature of registrar
Registrar
Date received by registrar
Date received by local registrar
Date filed
Signature of parent or other informant
Informant
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_04/sr04_008acc.pdf (from Table 1, Contents of Standard Certificate of Live Birth, by year revised)
Good point.
As HI has only had ONE standard form (the COLB) for a decade now, it should merely be referred to as their CURRENT STANDARD form.
All this “long form” misleading nonsense should be referred to what those things actually are – DISCONTINUED FORMS.
You have to read he, Lucas Smith’s, declaration filed on behalf of Teresa Holy Cao. It is just chock-full of Lucas Daniel crazy including details of his trip to the Congo to find Mokele Mbembe. He, Lucas Smith, is trying hard to outdo the crazy Teresa managed when she filed her own 43 page motion to dismiss filled with Sovereign Citizen garbage.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52792420/Exhibit-THIRTY-SEVEN-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-04-10-2011-Declaration-Filed-04-11-2011-in-the-Superior-Court-of-the-District-of-Columbia-United-States
But hasn’t it been established that Palin was born in Canada because of the inexpensive health care?
Charo-
I am somewhat surprised as to your response to Dr. Fukino’s statement.
To me it comes down to this: Do you believe Dr. Fukino’ is lieing? And if so, why?
Because either Dr. Fukino is lieing(and others are condoning her lie by staying silent, including the Registrar of Vital Records) or President Obama was born in the United States.
The rest is really just nit-picking.
If Dr. Fukino is not lieing, then whether or not Hawaii will release an original birth certificate is rather immaterial.
if Dr. Fukino is lieing, then there really must be a very big conspiracy- because she could not get away with it without others active or passive participation.
Is she lieing or is she not?
So if you don’t care where they were born, why the focus on Obama? It is equally irrelevant.
They are probably sent it back to Lucas to some warranty work.
I don’t think the article was ‘buried’, they simply fall off the end as new editorials are posted.
I don’t think Fukino is lying, it’s just that she has carefully & cunningly crafted her statement as per her usual tactic of delivering deliberately misleading via ambiguity.
Here’s what may actually be the case ……..
“SapphireSunday says:
Monday, April 11, 2011 at 12:12 PM
Toria, great point! I forgot all about how Lingle claimed that Obama’s records weren’t given any special treatment. They obviously were.
Whatever documents Fukino saw in that bound book at the HDOH might be nothing more than information (or affidavits) provided to the HDOH in the hope that the information would be accepted and a birth certificate issued–such as a partially completed birth registration that’s pending supplementary proof. Could it be that these documents were NOT accepted as proof of the birth, so no actual birth certificate was ever issued?
So they keep these documents on file in this book until supplementary evidence establishes beyond a doubt that the “facts” in the documents are true, but perhaps at this point they’ve never been authenticated. The original birth certificate might be a consular record of birth abroad or a Kenyan, Canadian, Indonesian, or other foreign birth certificate. Many say that a child born abroad to US citizen(s) who receives a consular birth record is considered a natural born (or native) citizen. That’s disputed, but it might be enough for Fukino to make the claim.
So is this is a bound book of pending registrations that were never investigated and found to be true? This may be why their laws (if that’s true) contain no provision for copying and releasing these types of documents to the public.
The AG disinformation officer said, “Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied.”
Now since his next (reported) sentence says that Obama could visit the records and look at them, but not copy them, this might be further obfuscation. They changed their law, iirc, about allowing access to records. People can go in person to look but NOT copy/photograph/scan. However, their laws DO allow the HDOH to copy and release copies of documents like long form birth certificates. That’s a fact.
If that wasn’t what was behind Wisch’s clever parsing–that the VIEWER himself can’t make a copy–then maybe “such records” refers to affidavits and supplementary documents filed with the HDOH but never authenticated.”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/
The Hawaii Attorney General is lying. See HSL sections 338-15, 338-18. Anyone with a tangible interest can get a copy of an original vital record.
a colb is a copy. You don’t have a tangible interest. Even Terri Lakin couldn’t get a long form for his own daughter
This is probably correct. Sharon has been posting like a crazed banshee today. I was able to access the article with a direct link earlier. I just found it odd that it it bumped off the home page so quickly.
Great link. The standard certificates by year are also here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/usvss.pdf
That’s interesting reading about the history of vital statistics in the US.
States often collected more than what was minimally required by the US Standard certificate.
I’ve read §338-13. It refers to certified copies and doesn’t state that it must be based on a photocopy of the original. This is the key:
“(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process **approved by the director of health**. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]”
The process by which a certified copy of a certificate is made is subject to the discretion of the director of health. If the the current acting director decided that typing would be the way, they could design a new form, buy a bunch of typewriters (yes – they still exist), and (once everything is in place) start issuing typed certified copies instead of their current computer printout COLB.
Funny, they always ignore the part about signed by the doctor who delivered him.
“Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”
Hey Michael, not sure if you saw this response to your early posts about seals:
§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.
a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape…….part of this section.”
(b) The official seal of the department of health shall be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify commissions of appointment of deputy directors and notaries public, certificates, and other formal official documents on which the official seal has been customarily used or is appropriate to be used, as the director of health may determine on a case-by-case basis.
http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/11-1.pdf
Here is the 1978 revised standards. What I like about this one is the following statement,
“The certificate was reformatted by moving the certiflcation statement and registrar information above the parentage information to make it possible to issue short-form certifications by photographic means.”
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_04/sr04_023.pdf
Robert, The good doctor did say there was a physicians signture. Check the full interview. I was delivered by a doctor but no longer have what you would call a “long form.” I lost it during a move. I now have what is called a Transcript of Birth from New York State. It is all they send now. It has less information than the President’s.
Yeah, I was wondering what was up with that. Last time I interacted with Charo it seemed to be more about concern trolling?
1) 28 USC 1739. –
“shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, IF THERE BE A SEAL, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers……”
Nothing there that says Hawaii must have a raised seal on a CoLB.
2) 28 USC 1739. –
“Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required”
Nothing there that says Hawaii must have a raised seal on a CoLB.
It merely states that it is not a condition precedent to admissibility IF it has a seal, IF it is proposed to be admitted as evidence in the court.
But Obama to too scared to go there, wonder why?
3) The requirements for “A certified birth certificate” at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
Doesn’t prove ‘natural born Citizen’, it’s merely evidence required to prove citizenship for issue of a passport.
Furthermore and more to the point ……….. “or multicolored seal of issuing authority”
So still a raised seal is NOT REQUIRED.
CORRECTION TO ITEM 2)
1) 28 USC 1739. –
“shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, IF THERE BE A SEAL, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers……”
Nothing there that says Hawaii must have a raised seal on a CoLB.
2) Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1). –
“Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required”
Nothing there that says Hawaii must have a raised seal on a CoLB.
It merely states that it is not a condition precedent to admissibility IF it has a seal, IF it is proposed to be admitted as evidence in the court.
But Obama to too scared to go there, wonder why?
3) The requirements for “A certified birth certificate” at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
Doesn’t prove ‘natural born Citizen’, it’s merely evidence required to prove citizenship for issue of a passport.
Furthermore and more to the point ……….. “or multicolored seal of issuing authority”
So still a raised seal is NOT REQUIRED.
Michael, not sure if you saw this response to your early posts about seals:
§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.
a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape…….part of this section.”
(b) The official seal of the department of health shall be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify commissions of appointment of deputy directors and notaries public, certificates, and other formal official documents on which the official seal has been customarily used or is appropriate to be used, as the director of health may determine on a case-by-case basis.
http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/11-1.pdf
See there a reised seal is required to verify certificates.
Also US Passport requirements:
“*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.’
MichaelN says:
I don’t think Fukino is lying, it’s just that she has carefully & cunningly crafted her statement as per her usual tactic of delivering deliberately misleading via ambiguity.
Whatever documents Fukino saw in that bound book at the HDOH might be nothing more than information (or affidavits) provided to the HDOH in the hope that the information would be accepted and a birth certificate issued–such as a partially completed birth registration that’s pending supplementary proof. Could it be that these documents were NOT accepted as proof of the birth, so no actual birth certificate was ever issued?
So they keep these documents on file in this book until supplementary evidence establishes beyond a doubt that the “facts” in the documents are true, but perhaps at this point they’ve never been authenticated. The original birth certificate might be a consular record of birth abroad or a Kenyan, Canadian, Indonesian, or other foreign birth certificate. Many say that a child born abroad to US citizen(s) who receives a consular birth record is considered a natural born (or native) citizen. That’s disputed, but it might be enough for Fukino to make the claim.
So is this is a bound book of pending registrations that were never investigated and found to be true? This may be why their laws (if that’s true) contain no provision for copying and releasing these types of documents to the public.”
What horsepucky.
when you say:
“I don’t think Fukino is lying, it’s just that she has carefully & cunningly crafted her statement as per her usual tactic of delivering deliberately misleading via ambiguity.:
you are of course saying she is lieing.
And then you proceed to lie about what she said.
No matter what fantasy you try to concoct- Dr. Fukino said this:
She reviewed the original birth certificate on file.
Barack Obama was born in Hawaii
Barack Obama is a natural born citizen
There is no ambiguity here- nothing misleading here.
Dr. Fukino is either lieing, or she isn’t.
If she is not lieing, then Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and no amount of Birther fantasies can spin it otherwise.
One more thing about Dr. Fukino. I think she has shown tremendous tact in responding to Birthers.
I have seen Birthers accuse her of all sorts of things- being corrupt, being scared, supporting Obama because she supports native Hawaiians- and you know it not about race but Obama probably supports native hawaiians because you know he is a socialist and blah blah.
As she pointed out- and has been shown correctly- it doesn’t matter what she says- Birthers will still believe what they want to believe.
And when the original birth certificate finally is revealed, not one of the die hard birthers will be consider it valid or sufficient.
They will want evidence from the hospitals and the doctor. And when the doctor turns out to be dead, they will imply darkly that Obama was behind the death.
MichaelN says “So still a raised seal is NOT REQUIRED.”
poor MichaelN, he is unaware that “registrar’s raised, embossed” is a raised seal. He is often wrong yet never admits nor corrects, what do you call such a person?
To be more precise the spokesman for the Attorney General’s office Joshua Wisch is making an incorrect statement. The Atty. Gen. does have a responsibility though to come out and correct that misstatement.
Bob
Correction to MichaelN’s correction:
And since the office does have a seal — you can see it on Obama’s COLB in the photographs taken by FactCheck.org — a document from them without it fails the requirement.
I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.
Bob
“I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”
Bob
So when McCain and Palin were running- did you care that neither of them ever made their birth certificate availible to confirm eligiblity?
Did you spend time arguing vigorously that unless they did so that no one could confirm that they were eligible?
Notice you didn’t respond to my earlier post yet either.
> it’s just that she has carefully & cunningly crafted her statement as per her usual tactic of delivering deliberately misleading via ambiguity
What is misleading about “he was born in Hawaii”? If there was a “consular record of birth abroad or a Kenyan, Canadian, Indonesian, or other foreign birth certificate”, this wouldn’t make Fukino say he was born in Hawaii.
It’s the same illogical “reasoning” and deliberate lying as you birfers employ when saying “everyone can get a Hawaiian COLB” leaving out “but not one stating the baby was born in Hawaii”.
On another forum I was offering some reasons why Obama might not want to release his original birth certificate. I copied it below. Note that I say most likely Obama was born in Hawaii, but I couldn’t rule out the possibility he wasn’t because his refusal to release the original record is not a rational move to me.
But what you might find interesting is my second suggested reason why he might not want to release it. It shows there is actually a scenario where alterations would not be reported on the COLB.
Bob
=======================================================
Since this blog post is about “birthers” who judge the issue analytically I should give my opinion on the matter. Here is the list of possibilities as I see them ranked from most likely to least likely based on the information I have so far. Note the second of the possibilities I just discovered today after looking up references.
1.)The President was indeed born in Hawaii, but he was not born in a hospital, so he does not have a traditional long form birth certificate. If you look at online information of Jimmy Carter you see he was the first President to be born in a hospital. So all Presidents before Carter were born at home. In such cases there would not be a traditional long form birth certificate. At home births still do occur today so it would not be so out of ordinary for this to have been the case for Obama.
This would of course mean he is eligible to be President. But it would raise a problem for him for the doubters because they would continue to maintain there is no proof he is a natural born citizen.
The reason I take this as the most likely explanation is because of the evidence released so far that he was born in Hawaii. But still we have his puzzling refusal to release the long form certificate. As I said there is nothing particularly Earth-shattering in the long form and his puzzzling refusal to release it just makes no sense at all. Note this is not a minor issue at this point. I saw on MSNBC with Chris Matthews that as many as 40% (!!) of the country aren’t sure whether or not that Obama was actually born in this country.
2.)This one I just found out today: on the original long form birth certificate perhaps it did not list Barack Sr. as the father. I had known about amendations of birth certificates but in Hawaii there should be a notation that the birth certificate was amended:
“§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.
(b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.
(c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.
(d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action.
The department of health may by rule provide for the dismissal of an application which is not actively prosecuted.
(e) As used in this section, “late” means one year or more after the date of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §20; RL 1955, §57-19; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-16; am L 1972, c 66, §1(2); am L 1997, c 305, §3]”
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm
Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” showed no such notations so I thought that was the end of that. But I just found out that in Hawaii there is a key case where there would be no notations of a change to the birth certificate and the new one with the changes would be completely taken to replace the old one. This would be the case where evidence would be presented of a change in the actual paternity of the child. See here:
§338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when. (a) The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the “birth registrant”:
(1) Upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, together with a request from the birth registrant, or the birth registrant’s parent or other person having legal custody of the birth registrant, that a new birth certificate be prepared because previously recorded information has been altered pursuant to law;
(2) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship between a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the birth registrant;
(3) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree, or of an abstract of the decree, pursuant to sections 338-20 and 578-14;
(4) Upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the birth registrant and has determined the following:
(A) The birth registrant’s sex designation was entered incorrectly on the birth registrant’s birth certificate; or
(B) The birth registrant has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the birth registrant’s birth certificate is no longer correct; provided that the director of health may further investigate and require additional information that the director deems necessary; or
(5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.
(b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, §1; am L 1975, c 66, §2(3); am L 1979, c 130, §1 and c 203, §1; am L 1982, c 4, §1; am L 1983, c 65, §1; am L 1984, c 167, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §2]
Rules of Court
Adoption, new birth certificate, see HFCR rule 112.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/hrs0338/hrs_0338-0017_0007.htm
And in a related scenario where the parents were not originally married but got married later see here:
§338-21 Children born to parents not married to each other. (a) All children born to parents not married to each other, irrespective of the marriage of either natural parent to another, (1) on the marriage of the natural parents with each other, (2) on the voluntary, written acknowledgments of paternity under oath signed by the natural father and the natural mother, or (3) on establishment of the parent and child relationship under chapter 584, are entitled to the same rights as those born to parents married to each other and shall take the name so stipulated by their parents or, if the parents do not agree on the name, shall take the name specified by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the name that is in the best interests of the child. The original certificate of birth shall contain the name so stipulated. The child or children or the parents thereof may petition the department of health to issue a new original certificate of birth, and not a duplicate of the original certificate that has been amended, altered, or modified, in the new name of the child, and the department shall issue the new original certificate of birth. As used in this section “name” includes the first name, middle name, or last name.
(b) The evidence upon which the new original certificate is made, and the superseded original certificate shall be sealed and filed and may be opened only upon order of a court of record.
(c) If the child’s natural parents marry each other and desire to change the child’s name, the child’s name may be changed and a new original certificate of birth prepared.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the power of the courts to order the department to prepare new certificates of birth under section 584-23. [L 1949, c 327, §25; RL 1955, §57-24; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 6, §2; HRS §338-21; am L 1975, c 66, §2(4); am L 1980, c 153, §5; am L 1983, c 65, §2; am L 1986, c 287, §1; am L 1987, c 100, §2; am L 1988, c 141, §27; am L 1993, c 131, §3]
Attorney General Opinions
Department of health’s preparation of a new birth certificate pursuant to paternity orders. Att. Gen. Op. 87-6.
Case Notes
Legitimacy or illegitimacy fixed at birth and cannot be changed by subsequent legislation. 3 H. 459; 4 H. 548. Prior to amendment of Act 71, L 1907, children of adulterous intercourse not legitimated by subsequent marriage of parents. 4 H. 292; 17 H. 45, 415, aff’d 210 U.S. 149.
Child begotten and born out of wedlock even though legitimated by statute on marriage of parents, is not “lawfully begotten child” within meaning of will. 14 H. 271.
Legitimation by subsequent marriage. 29 H. 258, aff’d 16 F.2d 273.
Presumption of legitimacy is not conclusive, but rebuttable. 30 H. 574. Evidence to rebut presumption. 49 H. 273, 414 P.2d 925.
Effect of legitimation on necessity of father’s consent to adoption of child. 52 H. 395, 477 P.2d 780.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0021.htm
Note that in these scenarios the original birth certificate is sealed only to be opened by court order.
Remember that Barack Sr. already had a wife and child in Kenya. He may not have originally wanted to be listed on official documents as Obama’s father, or perhaps he even had doubts he was the father.
In descriptions of Obama’s birth it is said that Ann Dunham and Barack Sr. married in February, 1961, 6 months before Obama was born. But so far the only documents that have been released is of their divorce. No documents showing when they were married have been released. So it is possible they were not married when Obama was born and Barack Sr. did not want to be acknowledged as the father.
3.)Obama really was born in another country. I consider this the least likely. But as I said it can’t be ruled out by the information released so far because it is possible for a child not born in Hawaii to have a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, as Obama has.
==========================================================
Actually McCain did because there was doubt about his eligibility.
What was the earlier post?
Bob
Dr. Chiyome Fukino July 2009:
“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….”
Then Fukino issued a new statement in which she no longer claims to have seen the original birth certificate instead saying she has seen “the original vital records” and now she says those records, but not the original birth certificate, verify “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Prior to that, in October 2008 Fukino said:
“I have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Fukino never said that his birth certificate said he was born in Hawaii, nor even what country it was from.
She’s covering her ass so if the truth comes out, she can honestly say that she never lied.
They only refused to respond to requests to confirm the letter was written by them. In short they are taking the fifth on the letter.
Bob
The problem is if some one asks them did you write the letter to Kapiolani congratulating them on their centennial and acknowledging Obama was born there, the expected response would be something like,”Oh yes Kapiolani is a great hospital and President Obama is proud to have been born there.”
It should not be, “No comment.”
Bob
What is ignored by the pro Obama lot here, is the fact that the founding fathers definitely sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim & the aim to achieve this was to use the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in Article II.
By virtue of the wise and common sense intent of the framers, it is without any doubt that ‘natural born Citizen’ meant one who is born in the republic, of parents who are Citizens of the republic.
You know it makes sense and so does Obama, who, if he really believes he is an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’, would completely demolish the ‘birthers’ by producing proof of his NBC status for a measly $10 rather then allow this division perpetuate amongst the people of USA & allow a decorated patriot marine end up in jail.
Obama is not a NBC, he knows it & you know it ………… he is a fraud and a liar.
Can anyone here produce an argument of any worth that supports the absurd notion that the founding fathers didn’t seek to establish that only those of the highest possible allegiance imaginable were to be eligible for the office of POTUS?
“In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, “of great use to Judges,” that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.”
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html
No, McCain didn’t. He never released his birth certificate publicly or made a copy available to anyone.
Little Bob has made it abundantly clear that he’s more interested in the endless stream of crap spewed from birther propaganda sites than factual information.
Has anyone demanded to see Palin’s or Biden’s BC?
This is rubbish (and I think you know it). Take it from me, a French jurist, that even if you equated Vattel’s French-language terms with that of “natural-born citizen” (there is plenty of room to argue this either way), then Obama would definitely meet that criterion.
As I have pointed out a zillion times, Vattel is a dead end for birthers.
You are free to entertain the notion that dual citizens or children born with potential dual citizenships are not NBC under your legal system (Vattel having nothing to do with it), but then you should weigh the ramifications of such a policy that would disqualify millions of Americans.
But then again that’s probably want you want.
Which means they didn’t bother replying to idiots who were sending them eleventy zillion other “requests” as well, including did Obama REALLY go to college, is Obama really human, etc.
I hate to stun you, but the White house staff has better things to do than respond to every stupid request by morons and lunatics, especially when the answer is completely obvious. And if I was a white house staffer and I read a request like that it would go straight into the round file in the corner marked “crazy file”
Mr Wisch’s statement is quite correct and needs no correction. The Hawaii DOH issues only COLBs. The law may not forbid them to photocopy original records, but they don’t do it. There are millions of things that are not forbidden by law that organizations and individuals choose not to do for a whole variety of reasons.
Now before you give me “Miki Booth’s friend’s daughter” let’s look at the following:
1. You don’t know that the person posting as Miki Booth is an actual person named Miki Booth. It could be anyone, even Lucas Smith.
2. You don’t know who Miki Booth’s supposed friend is.
3. You don’t know that this friend had a daughter in Hawaii.
Now let’s look at a real person. Terry Lakin. While I don’t think much of him, I have to admit he exists. He had a real daughter while stationed in Hawaii. She has a COLB. If it’s possible to get a long-form from Hawaii, he should get one and show it to the world. Until that happens, Mr Wisch is right and you are wrong.
Oh the irony…
Can you produce evidence that that supports your absurd notion that the founding fathers did not use the understood definition of NBC as seen in popular writers such as Blackstone? How often was your “highest possible allegiance” and two-citizen theory mentioned in the debates or or in the Federalist Papers?
Absurdity – changing the definition of a term and not bothering to tell anybody.
Absurdity – hearing a statement from a former government official and, without evidence, determine that she is lying.
Are you including citoyen Jefferson, lifelong, unfailing defender of France and all things French among the founding fathers? What is your stance regarding the deep financial and personal ties of the Bush family to the Saudi royals?
Doc,
The post at FR is serious; my post referencing that post was in jest. The phrase “Terrorist-Coddling, Warmongering, Wall Street-Loving, Socialistic, Godless Muslim” is direct from the Time magazine cover. I thought the attempt at humor would be obvious when I wrote “we are close to our orgasmic moment of de-blackeny”. No birther would write “de-blackeny”; they might think it but never come right out and say or write it. I hope there is still room here for a little bit of humor.
BJ the Physicist
Hey, MichealN – IIIII’m IGOOORIIING YOUUUUU! 😀
Of course not. Not only are they both white, but Palin was born in Canada because of the free health care.
Actually McCain didn’t. There is a story he showed one reporter but the reporter couldn’t make a copy or take pictures. McCain did not show it publicly.
Why do you continue to lie like this? It was not possible. Show us one COLB from someone who was born elsewhere but has a birth certificate from Hawaii that says they were born there since Hawaii became a State. You’re relying on a law that wasn’t even passed until 21 years after Obama was born and only applied if you did it up to a year after the child was born. The certificate still wouldn’t say they were born in Hawaii on it.
> sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim & the aim to achieve this was to use the term natural born Citizen’ in Article II
Well then they obviously failed epically, given that the status at birth has probably the least influence or claim on someone.
Let’s suppose baby Jim is a dual citizen at birth. Let’s further suppose his non-US citizenship, say Latvian, expires by the age of 6 (because he didn’t claim it by then according to Latvian law). Now Latvia has no more legal or moral claim on the child. Yet you assume that by the age of 50, Jim still has “allegiance” towards Latvia or Latvia still has a “claim” on him?
The same, BTW, also holds if Jim were a naturalized citizen who became naturalized at the age of 4.
On the other hand, assume Jane is born a US citizen to two US citizen parents, then decides to get a Latvian citizenship at the age of 18, then runs for US president at the age of 50, still a dual citizen.
Now Latvia *has* a claim on her although she is a natural born citizen even by the stricter birther Vattelist definition.
So obviously “natural born” is not ony not required to be free from allegiance/claim, it is also not a guarantee to be.
Well, what follows? That the Founders created a totally useless prerequisite for presidency that can be so easily circumvented?
Or rather that your whole birther definition of “allegiance”/”sole jurisdiction”/”two parent citizens” is entirely bogus?
I mean, if I had wanted to keep the presidency so free from “possible foreign influence”, I’d have written something much stricter than just “natural born”. I’d have been significantly more concerned with the *current* status of the person to be president, not his status as an infant.
If I were concerned about things such as “Christian values”, what would I write in the Constitution? That the president must be a Christian today or that he must have been a Christian at birth or that he must have been a Christian his entire life? What makes most sense?
Why didn’t the Founders write “born a citizen and not having been a citizen of another country in his entire life”, if you birfers were right?
Bobby, boy, about all your reasons why a BC would be sealed, you can be absolutely certain that Dr. Fukino would not have reinserted herself into this discussion if there were anything out of the ordinary of what she found in the bound archive.
Sfjeff correctly said that neither McCain nor Palin ever made their birth certificates available to confirm eligibility.
At 4:31 AM, a misinformed Robert Clark said “Actually McCain did because there was doubt about his eligibility.”
The facts are that McCain NEVER made his birth certificate public. He NEVER showed it to the Senate, as Lakin wrongly assumed.
In fact, he NEVER showed it to any Arizona officials at all.
McCain’s birth certificate was shown to a single Washington Post reporter, but never made public.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/citizen_mccain.html
“The McCain campaign has declined to publicly release his birth certificate, but a senior campaign official showed me a copy. Contrary to some Internet rumors that McCain was born outside the Canal Zone, in Colon, the document records his birth in the Coco Solo ‘family hospital.'”
So many birthers carry these memes — an idea that McCain made his certificate available but Obama did not — until the myth becomes reality in their minds.
Here is what actually happened. In 2008, there was a question of McCain’s eligibility because he had not been born in the 48 States. The campaign ordered a bi-partisan legal memo by Ted Olson (Republican) and Larry Tribe (Democrat). They concluded that McCain was eligible. They expressly stated that there was no doubt about Obama since he had been born in the State of Hawaii. The US Senate passed a resolution in favor of McCain’s eligibility, and printed the memo in the Congressional Record. The Senate never saw the birth cerficate.
McCain never made HIS birth certificate public.
In 2008, there was no doubt about Obama’s eligibility because he had been born in the United States.
Obama released HIS birth certificate to the public.
So which one is hiding something?
And why is Arizona suddenly so concerned about Presidential eligibility?
Because the President is a Democrat.
Because they totally neglect the issue for Republicans and examine it only for Democrats.
The Arizona legislation is just a partisan, hypocritical political witch-hunt.
Here is what Tribe and Olson said”
“Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. … And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/
Exactly Vince. If this was ever an issue for Arizona they would have looked into it the first time McCain ran in 2000 before he was beat down by Bush.
I’m sorry….do you have a learning diability? She said he was born in Hawaii. She never retracted that statement. She made a second statement responding to additional stupid questions. You do realize the birth certificates are vital records? This is just more idiodic birther parsing of words to try to take very clear statements, and turn them on their heads to mean exactly the opposite of what they are. I’m sorry. This is just beyond silly.
Perhaps it bears repeating that the Framers did in fact express concern about the influence of foreigners, and therefore excluded NATURALIZED citizens from the Presidency. They faced strong rumors that one of the sons of King George might be called on by the Americans to lead the floundering republic. They feared foreign military leaders. So they barred Congress from naturalizing a foreign leader. That is what they did. They never warned against any person who was born as a U.S. citizen.
This is how Tribe and Olson summarized the issue:
“Senator McCain’s candidacy for the Presidency is consistent not only with the accepted meaning of “natural born Citizen,” but also with the Framers’ intentions when adopting that language. The Natural Born Citizen Clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter to George Washington expressing concern about ‘Foreigners’ attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (1911). It goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States; Senator McCain is certainly not the hypothetical ‘Foreigner’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.”
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/
Hawaii will not issue a COLB to a person born overseas that says the person was born in Hawaii. The COLB will list the correct place of birth.
Suppose a Hawaiian couple has adopted a Korean infant. The birth certificate was issued by a foreign country and is in the Korean language. It can be a problem in the United States when presented to officials.
The law allows the couple to secure a COLB, issued by the State of Hawaii, with signature of the certifying official and raised seal, attesting to the child’s date of birth and correct place of birth in Korea.
It is official, and good for all purposes.
THAT is why the law has been on the books.
No one can get a COLB from Hawaii that certifies that a person born overseas was actually born in Hawaii.
Excellent explanation. Thanks!
I would like to add a minor, but IMO, an important point:
The US Senate passed a non-binding resolution (S.RES.511) in favor of McCain’s eligibility, and printed the memo in the Congressional Record.
A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.
This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something that they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation’s troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support.
Non-binding resolutions are usually specific simple or concurrent resolutions that are not passed on to the executive branch to be signed in to law. These resolutions differ from pure concurrent resolutions (that are used for various procedural requests such as adjourning sessions) in that they are designed to express formally and document opinions, not initiate a process.
These resolutions offer a means for elected officials to publicly air the concerns of their constituents and are closely followed by major media outlets. Additionally, these resolutions can be used to state the position of the legislature, showing a preview of how they will vote on future legislation and budget allocations.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution (HRES 224), recognizing March 14, 2009 as National Pi Day.
(Holland, Joshua (2007-02-15). “It’s Way Too Late for Nonbinding Resolutions on Iraq”. AlterNet. Retrieved 2007-02-17.
The Associated Press (2007-02-03). “What’s a nonbinding resolution?”. nwsource.com. Retrieved 2007-02-17
Profita, Hillary (2006-06-16). “Why A Non-Binding Resolution Gets A Lot Of Attention”. cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2007-02-17.
McCullagh, Declan (March 11, 2009). “National Pi Day? Congress makes it official”. Politics and Law (CNET News). Retrieved 2009-03-14.)
Will the birther move the goalposts?
Bet on it.
Actually, there is no problem. When you have a bunch of conspiracy fanatics, that continue to hound you with silly questions, you tend to give them the bursh off. It was a letter on White House stationary signed by the President, read aloud at a public ceremony by a public official, and later copied in hospital fund raising literature and on the internet. If the President and his administration, who are pretty tied up doing important things…you know…like running the country, are asked stupid questions, they very well may give you the brush off. Ignoring you is simply the polite way of saying, stop asking stupid questions and wasting everyone’s time. A less polite response:
“That is a very stupid question, and it’s stupid for you to ask that question.”
-Newt Gingrich, in response to a reporter who asked whether he wore boxers or briefs
MichaelN and Robert Clark just had another very public cry and outburst. They are in need of another nappy, and they will feel better.
Fact is, no one has impugned Dr. Fukino’s credibility, and she has been consistent. Her statements, under oath and in interviews, are good enough to have settles the matter for the Speaker of the House.
And any other rational purpose who does not seek out the “coded” messages in straightforward statements.
And speaking of the Speaker of the House…any committee of the House of Representatives, now with Republican majorities, can subpoena Dr. Fukino to testify under oath with the threat of perjury over her head. Thus far, none have.
If this issue is the “constitutional crisis” that birthers tell us it is, why is it so low on the agenda of Congress that it hasn’t even warranted a congressional inquiry?
BECAUSE IT BEARS REPEATING.
This would be the equivelent of going to the white house website, reading the executive orders issued and then calling the white house switchboard to ask if the President signed those executive orders and not stopping until you have the President himself tell you he signed them.. or your line gets disconnected for a few hours.
MichaelN argued at at 5:05 am that “What is ignored by the pro Obama lot here, is the fact that the founding fathers definitely sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim & the aim to achieve this was to use the term natural born Citizen’ in Article II.”
That argument has not been ignored. The framers were concerned about foreign influence, so they excluded naturalized citizens from the Presidency and Vice Presidency.
The exclusion was for naturalized citizens, no more, no less.
Obama’s citizenship is based on his birth in the US, subject to its jurisdiction.
His citizenship is not based on naturalization.
Therefore the Framers did not intend to exclude him, or anyone similarly situated, from the Presidency, and did not write any such exclusion into the Constitution.
We base our conclusions on what the Framers acually put in the Constitution, not on what the birthers imagine is in it.
sfjeff: “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”BobSo when McCain and Palin were running- did you care that neither of them ever made their birth certificate availible to confirm eligiblity?Did you spend time arguing vigorously that unless they did so that no one could confirm that they were eligible?Notice you didn’t respond to my earlier post yet either.
Bob: “Actually McCain did because there was doubt about his eligibility.”
As was pointed out McCain didn’t- but besides that you didn’t answer about Palin. If you insist that a Presidential candidate should provide a birth certificate, why of the 4 candidates for President and VP in 2008, did you only care about Obama’s?
You assumed McCain had released his, but it is easily shown he didnt. You clearly didn’t try to verify Palin or Biden.
So when you say “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.” why did you only apply this standard for one candidate in 2008?
What was the earlier post?
What was the earlier post?
That was a mistake of mine- I confused Robert with MichealN
Why did her office (at the time when she was the director of DoH) lie to the public about offer to sell birth index for 1961? AP writter Mark Niesse wrote about this possibility but the DoH refused to sell it and returned the money to the requestor.
Why is it that DoH would not respond to a trivial request under the UIPA law and confirm that they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama on June 6, 2007?
It was at Dr. Fukino’s discretion to confirm that registration number 10641 belongs to Obama’s birth registration index – she chose not to answer this UIPA request.
And finally she mentioned half-typed half hand-written original birth certificate – take a look at Nordyke certificates, they are not half hand-written. Therefore, Dr. Fukino implicitly said that Obama’s original birth certificate did not come from the Kapiolani, contradicting the official birthplace story.
Excellent, the letter claiming Kapiolani borth is authentic and Dr. Fukino claims that the original birth certificate is half hand-written. It means it is different from Nordyke certificates. Either Obama or Dr. Fukino is lying, which one is it?
MichaelN says:
By virtue of the wise and common sense intent of the framers, it is without any doubt that natural born Citizen’ meant one who is born in the republic, of parents who are Citizens of the republic.
You know it makes sense and so does Obama, who, if he really believes he is an Article II natural born Citizen’, would completely demolish the birthers’ by producing proof of his NBC status for a measly $10 rather then allow this division perpetuate amongst the people of USA & allow a decorated patriot marine end up in jail.
Obama is not a NBC, he knows it & you know it ………… he is a fraud and a liar.
Well Michael- you and about 10 people believe this two citizen nonsense.
Seriously- did you even go to school in the U.S.? Take a citizenship course? Because those of us who did learned that anyone- even the son of Kenyan- who is born in the United States can aspire to grow up and be President of the United States.
It is one of the great things about our country- we left behind the European class system which said the Father’s class and status was relevant to the child. Not in America- for everyone except Birthers.
“Excellent, the letter claiming Kapiolani borth is authentic and Dr. Fukino claims that the original birth certificate is half hand-written. It means it is different from Nordyke certificates. Either Obama or Dr. Fukino is lying, which one is it?”
There are other possibilities:
a) You are mistaken
b) You are lieing.
c) You are speculating based upon a confirmation bias
You did not refute facts mentioned in my post.
MichaelN: What is ignored by the pro Obama lot here, is the fact that the founding fathers definitely sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim & the aim to achieve this was to use the term natural born Citizen’ in Article II.
You’re mostly correct on this. It is plainly obvious that the founders were looking to limit who can obtain the office of the president. We are all aware of that, and no one here has ever denied that.
And from mostly right, you veer off to entirely wrong. It is without any dbout that your definition of natural born citizen has no support in law. There is no controvery over this in the legal community. It is junk law. It’s up there with “there is no law that requires me to pay income tax.” It is just simply 100% incorrect. Saying “it is without any doubt” doesn’t make a false statement true. It simply shines a spot light on your ignorance.
I went to law school. I know it is wrong. President Obama tought Constitutional law. He knows you are wrong. He also knows no matter what he forks over, birthers will make something new up. Afterall, he already produced his birth certificate, and the first thing the birthers did was declare it a forgery, despite the Republican governor of Hawaii and her administration confirming he was born in Hawaii. Additionally, your false statements on the law prove that the production of the legal birth certificate is immaterial due to your junk law interpretations of NBC. It is not the President that is perpetuating division. It is the small minority that strive for a more Iranian like system, where only those that are approved by thier clerics can run for office. Oh…and patriot marines follow lawful orders. It is cowards not worthy of the uniform make up excuses (and pvt. Lakin was in the Army, not a marine…but you seem to operate in a fact optional world, so it doesn’t matter).
No. He knows he is an NBC. You see, he actually studied the law, and knows that the garbage birthers are spewing is the most insane, unsupported, drivel to come up from the sewer. Everyone who is honest with themselves know he is an NBC. The only frauds are those 3rd rate excuses for attorneys that are peddling these bogus theories, because they should know better…well, Orly probably not. She’s a fraud of an attorney who probably doesn’t know better because she got her JD in the mail to save money on dental malpractice litigation (and if she’s as bad a dentist as an attorney, I’m guessing that’s a lot of malpractice).
You see the problem is that there is no support for your definition of what the “highest possible allegiance imaginable” means. All the case law, and the the entire legal community agrees with us as to the definition of what a NBC is. It is you who need to produce an argument of any worth to support your absurd notion that the founding fathers relied on a misinterpration of a Swiss/Prussian scholar that didn’t exist until 2 centuries after their drafting, rather than relying on the common law understanding of a term that they were all aware of.
What about the part of the birth certificate that is is not on the Nordyke’s BCs is that written or typed? Remember when Dr. Fukino says she saw the original BC, it means she saw the entire thing, not just the parts they copy for the public.
You did not post facts. You posted speculation arising from conjecture.
Utter bull, as is traditional from Nancy
Dr Fukino said the document was half typed and half written,
Now, here’s the Nordkyke one…
http://barnhardt.biz/blogimages/NordykeBirthCertificate.jpg
What pray tell is that….Oh, qu’elle suprise, it’s half typed and half written
FAIL again.
Oh, there is plenty of doubt. In fact, ever since the two-citizen parent argument appeared, we have been challenging birthers to find just one civics, history or constitutional law textbook which says that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. They have been unable to find one.
Find one prominent constitutional scholar who supports the two-citizen parent requirement. The best that the birthers have been able to do is the ambulance-chasing DWI attorney, Mario Apuzzo.
Find one published legal decision which says that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. There is no such decision.
You know it makes sense and so does Obama, who, if he really believes he is an Article II natural born Citizen’, would completely demolish the birthers’ by producing proof of his NBC status for a measly $10 rather then allow this division perpetuate amongst the people of USA & allow a decorated patriot marine end up in jail.
More birther nonsense. You know perfectly well that in your eyes Obama cannot prove that he is a NBC by releasing his “long form” birth certificate. The long-form birth certificate says that his father is Barack Hussein Obama, and we know that his father was never a U.S. citizen. So if you ever got to see the long-form birther certificate, you will still claim that he is not eligible to be President.
BTW, Terry Lakin was not a marine. He was in the Army. And patriots do not disobey lawful orders from their superiors.
I don’t think sfjeff is ideologically a birther. Besides that, I wouldn’t call the Nordyke BCs “half typed and half written”. Everything that could be typed is as such. Only the signatures and corresponding signing dates are handwritten.
I don’t find it all that unusual that a document would be partially filled in with the remainder written. Sometimes documents are partially filled out, and then more information is written in as it becomes known.
Three points. 1. If Dr. Fukino’s statement is correct great release the info. The bigger problem in my mind is that this makes Barry a complete psycho-control feak that refused answer to the people which is worse than being a record sealer. 2. Barry’s still ineligible you need two citizen parents to be eligible. 3. The bc isn’t the only information that needs to be public record. Release it all!
I thought that the US Marine Corp wouldn’t have any doctors anyways. US Navy doctors would generally serve the needs of Marines personnel.
And oddly, someone did get a copy of it, and put it up on the internets? Perhaps the requestor just messed up the request? Nah! Birthers never screw up requests to government agencies.
Perhaps because either you are not entitled to get that information, or they don’t even keep records of that sort? Many possibilities that you continue to ignore.
She did answer the request. She said under the law, and current policy/rules, they do not release registration numbers. You are confusing a response telling you you are not entitled to that information, to not answering.
Only in your paranoid mind. Your mistake is that you assume that everything that you see in the Nordyke certificates is 100% the rule, and everything proceeded in a manner that you, based on nothing but your own prejudices and beliefs, totally devoid of any factual support, thinks it should go by. Those of us in the real world recognize that particularly 50 years ago, in the days of forms, typerwritters, and manual data entry, there is no 100% rule of how things happen. Even beyond that, with a sample of 2, you cannot determine what is the rule, and what is the exception.
But your mistakes have been pointed out over and over again, and yet you obstinately keep repeating them.
Michaeln
A few FACTS about your buddy fecker Lakin
He was counselled on multiple occassions that his “issue” had neither legality or validity
He was informed on multiple occassions that his actions, if pusued would lead to his court martial
He openly defied and disobeyed the lawful orders issued by his commander, a serving Medal of Honor recipient
He openly, deliberately and defiantly refused explicit orders to deploy…TO KANSAS
He only got his “concerns” after he was informed he was to be deployed abroad
Even though he had stated, multple times, in public, that he had no intention of deploying he STILL fraudulently took the pre-deployment leave a DEPLOYING soldier is entitled to.
His daughter was born in Hawai’i and it was stated, on the record, that he tried to obtain a “long form” for his daughter and was told such a thing is NOT available. So he knioew his entire thesis was full of cack.
His actions directly led to impaired care for the soldiers he would have deployed with.
It was so stated, on the record, at his court martial, by the officer who, unlike him never got to put his affairs in order who had to replace him.
The officer who replaced him had a mass casualty event three days after deploying in Lakins place and stated that his and his teams ability to perform at their best was hindered as he had insufficient time to pre-deploy train and integrate with the medical teams.
So no, Lakin is anything but a decorated patriot.
Three responses:
1) He did answer. You just weren’t listening. He has better things to (you know…like run a country in a time of war and recession) than to keep repeating the same things to a bunch of malcontents who refuse to hear the truth from many different sources.
2) No, you are wrong. There is no support in the law for the 2 parent rule.
3) No, he doesn’t need to release anything. Get over it. You already got more than you’re entitled to.
This is great news I can’t wait to see the long-form and all the other records he has sealed. Once you decide to run for POTUS all past information should be public record. It’s called informed voting.
What information have previous Presidents or candidates released? What information have the current crop of pretenders released? Are you aware that the AG’s office of Hawaii says you cannot get the so-called long form? Why couldn’t Lakin get one for his daughter?
I just wanted to point out something this post is a good example of – when an obot on this site makes an error, they generally acknowledge it (whether or not anyone noticed their error). However, I can’t remember the last time that a birther acknowledged being wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, or just plain lying, even when caught red-handed… Why is that?
I’m sorry…what exactly has the President sealed? Oh yeah….Nothing. You seem to confuse the fact that you aren’t entitled to certain documents with the President taking some action to “seal” them. And what is this “long-form” you’re talking about. We were discussing the President’s Hawaiian birth certificate, which as of several years ago only came in one form.
And pay attention to your second sentance there…note even your use of the word “should.” You see, even you don’t use the word “is.” Just like I would have LOVED to see our former President GW Bush’s military and arrest records…however, they were not public records, and I couldn’t see them. Just because you think something “should” be so, doesn’t make it so.
As for informed voting…the voting happened. It’s been two years. Move on. If you don’t like the amount of information, you, just like everyone else, has the option of not voting for a candidate. However, more Americans than ever before, decided they had enough information, and chose to vote for President Obama. If you don’t like it, try again in 2012.
Sorry science guy I wasn’t born yesterday. This whole thing reaks to high heaven. I will never be convinced until all his past has been revealed and If Barry’s clean thats cool with me. All I what is transparency and accountability from my president.
Until I see your original birth certificate, i wiill say you were.
1. What exactly would you like to see?
2. For which Presidents have you seen this information?
Like it or not one thing is certain Barry’s gonna come clean on the hawiian birth info 2012 and we shall see what is soo damaging.
I think you could have just stopped with “I will never be convince.” There is nothing the President will do that will ever make you vote for him. It has nothing to do with what he releases. The question is, did the candidate you did vote for release the documents you are requesting? The answer will be no, because no candidate has even released the documents the President has. Have you ever even asked for any other candidate to release the documents you are asking from the President (did you ask President Bush for his arrest records? His military records? Did it stop you from voting for him?)? I’m guessing unless you’ve never in fact voted, the answer will be no.
He has already released all that it is possible to release unless Hawaii changes their policies and procedures. What you see is what you get, as the old song says.
He “came clean” a long time ago. Get over it. You’re seen everything you’re going to see, and you’re not going to vote for him anyway.
They didn’t specifically state this in the Constitution. Your argument is as absurd as anyone who says “Senators and Congressmen should not have limitless opportunities to run for re-election. The Founding Fathers intended legislatures to serve for a limited time then go back home.”
There’s also the fact that, although the non-citizen status of Barack Obama’s father has always been public knowledge, the election was still certified and he was inaugurated on 1-20-2009. It takes a special kind of stupid to assert that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president based on publicly known information. It would be like me claiming John McCain’s POW past makes him ineligible to be president.
I wish I could find it, but there was a Dilbert comic strip where, I think, Ratbert claimed to be developing psychic powers. Dilbert called the Skeptic’s Society to get them to run some tests to debunk Ratbert. The guy from the Skeptic’s Society wouldn’t believe Dilbert was telling the truth when he said his name. He’d said something like “Well if you show me your driver’s license, how will I know it wasn’t forged.” At the end, Dilbert was saying “Okay, I could send in a DNA sample. Okay, yes, maybe that would be useless if I had a clone.”
I sure wish I knew when that one was printed.
Jleinf, I’ll try to help you. Please list:
A- the documents you want Obama to release
&
B- links to those same documents as released by either McCain or Bush.
Thank you, and I look forward to helping you.
I doubt that.
Prove it.
Lieutenant Colonel Lakin in his own words: “I chose the wrong path.”
I apologize for forcing the US Army to court martial me.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/lakin-i-chose-the-wrong-path/
Robert Clark, will you do me a small favor, and simply acknowledge that you were wrong about McCain having released his birth certificate? It is actually a very common mistake, and you were simply lied to by someone.
Others have said that birthers never acknowledge an error or correction, and I just want to see if you will step up and be the first to admit an error.
Again, it is such a common error that even I mistakenly believed it at one time.
It would mean a lot to me.
Thanks.
Wow this is big news. Dr. F finally steps up to the plate and says Barry birth info has a doctor’s signature. So what the heck took so long? Why couldn’t Neil find anything with a signature. Why the heck doesn’t busy Barry just release it and finish the birthers. I wonder if this statement by an ex offical carries the same weight as the current director’s statement? Still pretty Fishy to me.
I for one refuse to believe Barack Obama is eligible until I see the Super Deluxe Birth Certificate on glossy photo paper with raised seal, delivering doctor’s name, hospital of birth, both parents’ names and citizen status at the time of registration, registration number, notice of date filed, horoscope, and special scratch and win panels (get three cherries to win your choice of high end automobiles!)
Until this document is unsealed, I will oppose the usurper to my dying breath.
This is a big day for the libs. Finally a fact that might actually help their cause. Lets just hope it isn’t a little white lie from an ex-offical because she doesn’t have anything to lie about right. It’s not like she has already lied about this in the past right. Maybe it’s just best release the real thing to be sure.
I was relying on the images I’ve seen to be of his birth certificate out on the internet. There seems to be some doubt that they are valid. So yes McCain has not publicly released his birth certificate.
Bob Clark
1) None of them ever said such a thing
2) The Constitution doesn’t say such a thing
3) One of the Framers said the purpose of the natural born citizenship clause was to insure “attachment to the country.”
4) ANYBODY who was a citizen when the Constitution was ratified qualified including folks who had supported the British in the late war, who didn’t speak English and who were dual citizens of other countries (e.g. Jefferson).
Now it’s your turn. How about an argument in support of the absurd notion that the Framers intended something they never mentioned.
What?!? No placental scratch ‘n sniff panel?
If you bathed once in a while, the whole world would smell better.
The answer is obvious. It’s because I disliked Obama intensely. I had no particular interest in the others since they were republicans, whom I wasn’t interested in voting for.
When Obama won the democratic nomination, I voted solely for McCain solely because he was not Obama.
Bob
Perhaps she was too busy answer all the other birther questions to get around to it? Now that she’s no longer governor, perhaps she has more time to keep answering the same question a multitude of ways in the vain hope that she can stumble upon the magic combination of words that mean the exact same thing, that the birthers actually want to hear?
Who ever said he didn’t?
Like you said, he’s busy…you know…doing President stuff….like running the country….oh yeah…and he did release the one birth certificate that the state of Hawaii will issue him some 2 years ago.
Considering every statement made by anyone all point to the President being born in Hawaii, why would anything be fishy?
And encapsulated in that paragraph is the reason no number of records would be sufficient. Aside from “OMG FORGERY”, birthers would scream “WHAT TOOK SO LONG???”
Can we make this a Jeopardy question?
Answer: Who is nc1?
I win!
And of couse, you have no evidence of her lying. That’s right….birthers don’t need evidence. Afterall, if they actually relied on evidence, then they couldn’t be a birther.
Just accept you’ve already seen all you’re going to get. The President LOVES birthers. They make the Republicans look so looney all the indpendants will be voting straight ticket Democrats.
so as we see it. your dislike of Obama makes you see things that aren’t there.
Kudos, Robert Clark. I have seen “Obots” post inaccurate info here, and have even been corrected myself on one or three occasions.
I feel that dialogue is only possible when basic facts can be agreed upon. Opinions, of course, are varied and should be argued.
Speaking as an Obot, I can say that one of the most frustrating things we deal with is people posting the same inaccurate info over and over again, after having it debunked for them in a very clear way. You don’t seem the type to come here tomorrow and claim that “McCain released his BC” and for that I thank you.
On a different note, I’m disappointed that people are calling Dr. Fukino’s reputation and honesty in question with absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing on her part. She is a very respected Republican public official, without a hint of scandal in her past. Some people should hang their head in shame.
Birthers could gain more credibility if they didn’t keep repeating lies.
Abercrombie never said that he couldn’t find anything with a signature. He couldn’t find anything which he could legally release to the public. Big difference.
Here’s a hint. Before you make a birther claim, go the source and find out exactly what was said. Don’t simply rely on something which you say on a birther blog.
Sorry, that should be “which you saw” on a birther blog.
You’re perfectly entitled to dislike Obama or anyone else for any reason and not vote for them. I don’t understand the need for the birther nonsense.
I will say that if the best case you and others can make against a sitting President is based not on his record in office, but on the same issues you tried against him in 2008 and lost, you won’t like the ooutcome.
I presume you were referring to my reasons for saying why Obama might not want to release his original birth records? Note I wrote this before the weekend Fukino interview on MSNBC. When I wrote it there was still some doubt there was a delivering physician. Accepting the validity of Fukion’s statements, it seems unlikely he would not have an officially recognized birth certificate even if born at home, so the first possibility I suggested would appear less likely.
(Note: as I am aware Fukino did not actually confirm he was born in a hospital, did she? For privacy reasons it would be understandable why she could just say he was delivered by a physician without giving that physicians name. But by the same token she should be able to say he was delivered in a hospital without giving the hospital’s name.)
About the second possibility that there could be parental change or legitimacy change that would be sealed, for privacy reasons you could well imagine she would not want to give any hint to this at all. In fact since this information would be under seal under Hawaiian law it’s possible she could even be prosecuted for revealing it.
Also, accepting the validity of her statements, the third possibility also seems unlikely, as I already thought it was, that he was born outside the country.
Bob
Wrong. A couple can’t get a divorce unless they first have gotten married. And why would they go to the trouble of getting a divorce if they were never married?
But as I said it can’t be ruled out by the information released so far because it is possible for a child not born in Hawaii to have a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, as Obama has.
Wrong again. The law which allows Hawaii to issue birth certificates to people not born in Hawaii wasn’t passed until 1982. An in any event, such a birth certificate would not say that the person was born in Honolulu.
Think this through logically, if you can. If what you claimed were true, it would mean that the State Department could never issue a passport to someone born in Hawaii, because that person would be unable to prove U.S. citizenship. But it is obvious that people born in Hawaii are being issued passports every day. Why would the State Department accept a Hawaii COLB as proof of citizenship if the document could have been obtained by someone who was not born in the U.S.?
For more than two years we have been challenging birthers to produce one example of a Hawaii COLB which was issued to someone born in another country yet says that the person was born in Hawaii. Not one has ever been produced, because not even one exists.
Mr. Clark,
Since you stipulated to the fact that John McCain never released his BC, I assume that you will admit that many birthers (knowingly or not) made factually incorrect statements regarding this issue. That being the case, is it possible that this is not an isolated incident amongst the birthers, but rather just one example of a myriad of statements made by birthers (ranging from honest mistakes to bald-faced lies) in support of the thesis that President Obama is not a NBC? If what I suggest is true, why should any rational person give any credence to any question raised by the birthers (and therefore based on multiple fallacies)?
Certainly. Some big ones were made by Donald Trump, like taking seriously the recordings of Obama’s relatives in Africa that he was born there.
On the other hand when an official of the highest law enforcement office in the state of Hawaii makes a factually incorrect statement on the law to support Obama, that should also be a serious concern. That can only serve to undermine the confidence in the public that everything is being handled above board.
Bob
I’m aware of that. But the only information that’s been released is the date of the divorce, not the date they were married. So it is possible there were married after Obama was born.
Bob
If you are referring to Governor Lingle saying that the DOH had confirmed that he was born at Kapiolani, I don’t think that any objective person sees that as anything more malevolent than the Governor (an official not specifically familiar with DOH rules and polices) accidentally conflating the statements made by DOH officials with her personal knowledge that President Obama was born at Kapiolani (she was present when Governor Abercrombie read the president’s letter, so we can reasonably assume she would take this as fact). In order to construe this as something untoward, one must already have engaged a confirmation bias… In other words, this is not a serious concern for anyone who hasn’t already made up their mind against President Obama.
“I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”So when you say “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.” why did you only apply this standard for one candidate in 2008?
The answer is obvious. It’s because I disliked Obama intensely. I had no particular interest in the others since they were republicans, whom I wasn’t interested in voting for.
When Obama won the democratic nomination, I voted solely for McCain solely because he was not Obama.
Bob
Bob I appreciate the honesty, but that then contradicts your statement:
“I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”
Clearly your interest in presidential birth certificates was limited to the candidate you personally disliked.
Do you not see the problem with using that standard?
I don’t want to make this a race issue- but you will admit that some people are bound to dislike President Obama simply because he is not white. These people also have a personal- though racial based- dislike for the President.
Should any President ever be held to different standards simply because of people who personally oppose that President?
This is why this appears to be a racial issue- because Birthers did not ask for or expect to see the birth certificates for any other 2008 candidates- they only asked to see the one for Barack Obama.
When a candidate, or President is suddenly being demanded to be held to a new- and higher standard than everyone else, there is every reason to believe it is being done for personal, racial, religious or political reasons, rather than anything having to do with eligiblity.
Obsolete: “Robert Clark, will you do me a small favor, and simply acknowledge that you were wrong about McCain having released his birth certificate?”
Bob Clark: “I was relying on the images I’ve seen to be of his birth certificate out on the internet. There seems to be some doubt that they are valid. So yes McCain has not publicly released his birth certificate.”
Thank you, Obsolete. I, and many others here, have spent a lot of time documenting the myth that McCain released his but Obama did not.
Now, here is the federal legal definition of birth certificate, as codified in a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):
http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html
The definition reads:
“(3) Birth certificate. – As used in this subsection, the term `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
“(A) of–
“(i) an individual born in the United States; or
“(ii) an individual born abroad–
“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and
“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
“(B) that–
“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or
“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
The COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”
I think the definition is important, because, after all, Obama holds a federal office. Moreover, the State Department listed the public law that enacted this definition, which applies to all federal agencies, in its new regulations. http://www.peterli.us/Content/PDF/USpassportRules.pdf
Now, can Robert Clark, or any of the other birthers, stipulate that because the COLB issued by Obama is a “birth certificate” within the meaning of the federal legal definition, and that Obama HAS released his “birth certificate,” as defined by federal law?
This would help resolve the question “Where’s the birth certificate?”
do you not bother to actually research before you post lies?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729524-3,00.html
I meant in the recent MSNBC story with Fukino where a spokesman for the Attorney Generals office said it was against the LAW to release anything other than the short form birth certificate. No, it’s just current *policy* to only release the short form, a policy that undoubtedly can be changed at any time at the discretion of the director of the health department or of the governor.
A spokesman for the Attorney General’s office should understand that distinction.
Bob
Robert Clark noted that “I was relying on the images I’ve seen to be of his birth certificate out on the internet.”
I think this is an opportune time to recall that Doc exposed the falsity of those images MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO.
“The Birth Certificate is a forgery!” by Dr. Conspiracy on February 27, 2009:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/
This is retrievable right here on Doc’s site through his own Search window.
Good work, Doc!
This is part of the difficulty in coping with birther arguments. Reliance on those images that show McCain being born at a hospital in Colon City is just not reasonable reliance. The birthers have filled their heads with long discredited information. The true story never seems to catch up with the myth. The birthers keep asking questions that have been answered.
While I would agree that, in general, a spokesman for the AG’s office should understand that nuance, I don’t think that they would necessarily be able to communicate the difference through a reporter, nor do I assume that they would even try. Again, I don’t think that this raises any concerns in the minds of reasonable and objective people (or reasonably objective people).
I have been amazed how resistant people are to the arguments in my article, even though they are rather obvious. Many birthers continue to believe that John McCain released his birth certificate even though there is nothing whatever linking McCain to the fake certificate filed in Hollander v McCain.
The divorce decree lists the date of the marriage as February 2, 1961.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11
I give you fair warning: this ain’t no birther web site; you can’t get away with saying stuff that’s easily disproven.
Let me give a for-instance that hit will close to home for Slarty of how government agency policies are as good as laws when you deal with those agencies. When you write an NIH grant, some sections are limited in length. What you write must fit in a box or on no more than 5 pages. Now Congress never voted on those limits. No law prevents an NIH study section from reading the 400 pages you wrote, instead of 5. But do you think they will do that or wiill they place your grant in the reject pile?
I think that it would be easier to hit the lotto every week for a year than it would be to get such a proposal funded…
Robert Clark said “a spokesman for the Attorney Generals office said it was against the LAW to release anything other than the short form birth certificate. No, it’s just current *policy* to only release the short form, a policy that undoubtedly can be changed at any time at the discretion of the director of the health department or of the governor.
“A spokesman for the Attorney General’s office should understand that distinction.”
Is there such a distinction? Was the spokesman wrong in his interpretation of state law? Since the State Attorney General is the official legally charged with the enforcement of all state laws, the views of that office are given great weight.
Let’s see what the OFFICIAL state website has to say.
Source: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
QUOTES ON
The State’s public records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (“UIPA”), found at chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) requires that all government records be open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law. Government records means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form, see HRS §92F-3. The UIPA does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure, see, HRS §92F-13 (4), nor does it require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency.
Unless a request for DOH records is specific enough to be understood, the request cannot be responded to by the DOH.
The DOH may not have a record which is responsive to a request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile or create information to respond to a request.
State law prohibits the DOH from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule. See HRS §338-18. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b).
In light of the unprecedented number of requests for information relating to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II, the DOH has reviewed the requirements of UIPA and the confidentiality provisions of HRS Chapter 338.
Based upon that review, the DOH has determined that the information listed below constitutes all of the publicly available information related to requests for vital statistics records pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama II, and the only disclosures pertaining to those records that can be made in accordance with Hawaii law. The Department of Health is providing links to copies of the records in the form that they are available to the public.
1. Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth
State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.
Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:
The law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii is Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 338, which may be accessed on the state legislature website at:
Information on how to order certified copies of vital records in Hawaii and who is eligible to order vital records in Hawaii, is available on the DOH website at:
2. Index Data
Haw. Rev. Stat. §338-18(d) states, “Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.” Refer to link above for HRS §338-18.
Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, and type of event is made available to the public. The director, in accordance with HRS §338-18(d), has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.
Index data referred to in HRS §338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu. The public will be asked to provide identification and sign in to inspect the names and sex of all births, deaths and marriages that occurred in the state. Data are maintained in bound copies by type of event with names listed alphabetically by last name.
The index data regarding President Obama is:
Birth Index
Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male
UNQUOTE, hyperlinks omitted.
Now, that is what the spokesman for the Attorney General’s office told the reporter. Here is what he said:
“…Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of ‘vital records,’ including an original ‘record of live birth’ — even to the individual whose birth it records.
“‘It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,'” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
“But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “‘certification of live birth’ form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics
The Attorney General and the Department of Health are charged with administering the disclosure laws. Under prevailing American law, the interpretation given by such agencies to the laws they administer are entitled to great weight by any reviewing courts. They have stated the requirements of the law, complete with citations to the statutes, and their conclusions are authoritative.
Please note, everyone, that the site index data expressly states that “Obama II, Barack Hussein
Male” is in the state birth records. Since he was born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, he is a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency.
I’m sorry, birthers, but Obama was born in the USA and nondisclosure is the law. Buckle up.
Here’s a link to the full Tribe/Olson analysis mentioned above:
http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/McCainAnalysis.pdf
Shouldn’t their marrage info be available as index data? If I recall somebody, like a miss Tickly had the index data for the marrage.
Never mind the index data would not include the date.
Barry the record sealer is such a loser. WTH? he still won’t release his birth certificate and sends some ex-government employee out to say he has a doctor’s signature. Well aint that fricken sweet! Hey Barry, howz about being a real man and release all the Hawaiian data? Come on boy get yer feet wet!
nice that you just repeat your nonsense over and over again despite being 100% wrong
omg….. let see…u blaming others for your mistakes? Again…Obama wasnt born in Hawaii….unless he is lying himself..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded
BTW,,,,russian KGB found it long time ago…He was born in Kenya…You can say or think whatever you want..your problem….but the truth will be revealed soon… before 2012 elections.
If ,like you say ,he was born in Hawaii where is his BC? original…not Live bierth .
Where? wouldnt it be so simple to provide it as it was asked 2 years ago instead of paying lawyers not to show?
If he has it – show it!
The problem is that he doesnt have it and thats why you here are totally [expletive deleted Doc.] to believe in fairy story of Obamas goons.
If Barry was a leader,man or president for the people he would have come clean long ago. He is not and we will see much more of the BS in the future. No real records will ever see the light of day.
Do you always make yourself look like an idiot? The creator of that youtube video clearly states that it is an edited video and is satire not Obama actually saying those things but a reediting of video to make him say stuff he didn’t. I could easily take a bunch of video clips of you saying normal things to make them sound like you killed someone
I guess you’re calling every American president a coward for not revealing their own personal records.
I asked jleinf for a list of documents he wants Obama to release and a link to those as released by other Presidents, and he ignored me. It’s obvious that jleinf is a troll here to lob insults and lies, and should be treated accordingly.
And that is really all that birtherism is about, quite frankly.
Why can’t you folks just be upfront and give an answer like that in the first place? That is all you have to do is openly state that is where you stand. You don’t like Obama. You didn’t vote for him last time and you most likely won’t vote for him under any circumstances next time.
There. Done. Fully within your right to not like someone and not vote for someone. I have no problem with that at all.
Why do you birthers feel you have to come up with nonsense like birtherism as a cover for just being upfront and saying that in the first place? All that nonsense does is make you unnecessarily look bad, (gullible at best, lying con artists at worst), because it is so obvious you are grasping at every excuse in the world to explain away your dislike for him, when all you had to do was simply say you disliked him in the first place.
No I’m just calling out the “transparent one” in charge today Dr..
Hey lets get our facts straight. Barry was a muslim. Barry was a foreigner. Barry won’t come clean on his hospial of birth and doctors signature. This be all true. So Barry could actually be a muslim, foreign exchange president without an American hospital of birth. Wait thats crazy lets check his records. Oyeah, those records aren’t available.
Hey stupid troll…keep making yourself look like a liar and fool. All your nonsense was answered. All you are proving is how dumb you are.
Many birthers are bigots and cowards.
Birthers like Bob are despicable for being smart enough to know truth from lies, for showing disrespect for the law and for justifying his double standards and repeated lies with his admitted hatred and bigotry.
But at least he had the cojones to admit his true motivation. I’ll give him that.
Well, good thing that didn’t actually happen then.
However, a bunch of angry, biased people trying to twist others words to make the mundane look sinister… that can only serve to undermine confidence in believing anything that biased person says. You just can’t trust someone who just makes up (or parrots) imaginary arguments in order to slander people. Birthers seem to have forgotten the tale of the Little Boy who Cried Wolf…
Lets just see all the Hawaiian records and finish this. Come on libs even you realize that he could if he wanted to and don’t say he’s busy.
Facts never lie release the records!
You should understand how the real world works. In any business or organization, the policies in place dictate how things work. You might not like their policies, but too bad.
Further, their policies are published and available. The policies you birthers are complaining about have been in place long before Obama started campaigning. So, if you were unaware of those policies, now you know and congrats – you’ve learned something. If you had questions about a possible policy issue – you can ask that agency about it or research it yourself. These things are documented and explained, when inquiries touch upon them.
You might not agree with the policy or not like it…but again…there’s nothing you can do about it…so too bad. Move on.
Whining about policies you don’t like get’s you nowhere and just makes you look pathetic and small. You only lose sympathy and make yourself look bad by throwing a whiny tantrum.
They haven’t forgotten it, they’ve just gotten it backwards – they think that it’s a good example instead of a cautionary tale…
Bob’s proven he doesn’t care. He admitted his motivation is hatred.
As with many birthers, anything goes. The end justifies the means.
No but Birthers lie about the Facts.
*yawn*. Little lying bigot troll doesn’t know what a fact is. Big surprise.
Too bad your entire post is 100% fact free and 100% wrong.
You come across like a scared and sad little child who’s only retort is to run around calling people “doody-head” and screaming “cooties!”.
It must be sad running through life seeing pretend “scary muslim bogeymen” behind every corner…
It’s great that Dr.F has come clean and confirmed Barry has a doctor’s signature on his record I believe her yeah I do she would never lie to protect the president she could get in trouble right? The doctor’s signature is probably from a clinic to confirm vaccinations or other bs to get him “regestered”. Release the fricken records they won’t lie
He doesn’t have to. Just as no previous president before Obama released their records. No none of this will end. Do you think NASA revealing every single piece of footage from the moon landing ever ended the moan landing conspiracy theorists? The fact is you birthers just make up new lies like saying Obama’s father must be Malcolm X, Jimi Hendrix or whichever other famous black guy you think looks alike. Just as birthers make up crap about his mother, make up the no dual citizenship claim. Your position isn’t based on reality.
So you’re claiming the director of Health under the Previous Republican administration who was working hard to get McCain elected would lie to cover for the opponent? Yeahh that makes a lot of sense… not
So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?
THAT is what is absurd!
You entire argument has it’s basis on this absurdity.
What would they make of a father/son pair of Presidents who had major financial dealings with the Saudi royal family and called a Saudi prince “Bandar Bush”? It’s all OK with you as long as their Dads were US citizens (so far as we know), right?
No, I’m saying that they never said that a president has to be born to two citizen parents, or can never hold dual citizenship. Also, ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS was President AND a citizen of France at the same time
Additionally, please explain why, if the fact of Barack Obama’s father not being a citizen at the time of his birth which President Obama has never denied and has always been publicly known, his election was certified and he was inaugurated on January 20th, 2011.
When your straw man arguments are so blatantly obvious they don’t fool anyone… The founders wished to protect the office of POTUS from anyone who wasn’t either born a US citizen or a US citizen when the Constitution was adopted and you’ve failed to provide any evidence that they intended anything different. They certainly didn’t feel the need to protect the office of POTUS from anyone born on US soil (without diplomatic immunity or a hostile army, that is) – sorry, but they overturned Dredd Scott… (which, I believe, is the only SCOTUS case to cite Vattel on the matter of citizenship) Your entire argument shows you to be a liar, an idiot, and a bigot.
If they were going to cover up something the original records would also be fixed so no one would ever know. Whatever, you’re screwed.
I assume you are including his kindergarten records.
Now that is funny. Particularly if nc1 is female.
Reminded me of my student days, when we used to have innocent, silly making up French sentences that had two or even more meanings depending on how you split up words (ravioli, qu’on sonne).
“C’est quoi, les birthers (naissancistes? naissanceurs?) Des cons qu’on surprise.”
Translation:
A short definition of a birther? A scruder who does not notice he’s been screwed.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scruder
(the quoted sentence fits the Donald perfectly)
What is absurd is believing that someone who practically never met his Kenyan father, who briefly vistited Kenya as an adult and who lost the chance to also have a Kenyan passport when he was 23 (let me remind you Eisenhower was a little bit older when he lost the chance to also get a German passport) would somehow be under Kenyan influence at the age of 47? While someone who took French nationality out of his own free will as an adult, would not be under the French influence – or not enough.
Wait a minute, it is only absurd for those who do NOT believe in …
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H1215-503-009,_Walther_Darr%C3%A9_bei_einer_Kundgebung.jpg&filetimestamp=20100201221133
Highest possible allegiance imaginable? No. Obviously not, since even without getting into your misguided interpretations of the clause one can imagine at least one way to ensure greater allegiance.
The eligibility only requires FOURTEEN YEARS of residence!
Surely someone who has lived here FIFTEEN years has a greater imaginable allegiance than someone who has lived here FOURTEEN years!
QED
Obama’s birth was registered four days after he was born. The only vaccination given to newborns is the hepatitis B vaccine. But guess what? The hepatitis B vaccine wasn’t developed until 1981, when Obama was 20 years old.
Another birther fail.
“MichaelN: So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?”
They did care. They excluded naturalized citizens from the Presidency.
They allowed all natural born citizens to occupy the office of President.
They showed a lot of wisdom.
The birthers could learn from them, but I doubt it.
Why stop there I want to see how Obama did in the Gerber baby program
LOL, what is your definition of HALF?
All fields in the document are typed except signatures and date signed field.
By your reckoning they only cared a bit, which is crap.
They either cared about protecting the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence or claim or they didn’t.
And we all know that they did care.
Which makes absurd the notion that they would allow those born of dubious allegiance to be eligible for POTUS.
The parents don’t want their kid to fall in the pool, so they put a fence around the pool but leave the gateway without a gate.
Yeah sure. lol
14 years of residency is only ONE of several criterion for eligibility.
Consider 21 years (age of majority) plus 14 years = 35 years (age of eligibility)
THAT was the eligibility criteria for age of the POTUS, besides the best security imaginable, being free from ALL foreign influences and claims, a ‘natural born Citizen’ soli & sanguinis.
The founding fathers either wanted the highest possible allegiance or they didn’t.
And we all know what the founding fathers wanted.
You are in denial.
Nobody got a copy of the birth index for 1961 even though such possibility was mentioned in Niesse’s article. The same offer was mentioned to Butterdezillion earlier that year
http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/notice-to-requester-2.pdf
Please explain to me how is it possible that DoH offered to disclose the birth year (privacy implications) while refusing to release registration number (no privacy implications)? It is upside down logic.
When actual payment for birth index was sent to them, DoH returned the money. Shortly afterwards they claimed that only 5-year cumulative index can be released to public.
Dr. Fukino’s DoH in action – lying to the public when applying the “sunshine law”.
I understand that your definition of half hand-written document is anything you want it to be. There are two documents in the sample – long form certificate (#10637 and #10638) for each of Nordyke twins. Absent Obama’s original document, Nordykes’ ceritifactes are standard that has to be used when judging the format of a birth certificate issued in August 1961.
If Obama was born in the same hospital day earlier than Nordyke twins it is reasonable to expect the same type of document as Nordykes’ – not a half hand-written document described by Fukino. Keep in mind that Abercrombie mentioned the “actually written” registration.
Who cares about Eisenhower.
You have this dude who has back-ground connections with dodgy criminals the likes of Ayers and Rizco, 20 years listening to the ‘reverend’ (we hate goddamn America), a communist marxist mother, communist marxist grandparents, communist marxist mentor & two ‘we hate the west’ muslim daddies.
Refuses to place his hand over his heart and salute the USA flag for the national anthem & a wife that ain’t proud of USA.
Get real!
No where in the Constitution it has been defined that the 14 years must be consecutive.
that would disqualiy many US military Vets otherwise.
35 was an arbitrary age that was a consensus by the founding fathers.
why would you pick 21 btw? 21 has no significance to anyone except to Drunk driving laws.
Back during our forefathers time, the age of maority (and one was an adult) was close to 16 years of age.
Pulling more bull out of your rear orifice. The only person in DENIAL is you.
Michael, you may have the worst case of denial that I’ve ever seen (although there are probably other birthers who are your better in this regard) – endlessly arguing long-debunked points and refusing to acknowledge even the most insignificant of the mighty array of facts showing you to be nothing but a bald-faced liar trying to sell disgusting propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself – you’ve shown yourself to be both a poor excuse for an American and a poor excuse for a human being.
> not a half hand-written document described by Fukino
So now you’re moving the goalposts again, claiming that “half-written” cannot be true because only 30% of the BC is handwritten? Splitting hairs can only go as far as down to the Planck length, you know?
> Consider 21 years (age of majority) plus 14 years = 35 years (age of eligibility)
However the Constitution does not say “14 years of consecutive residence” or “14 years of (consecutive) residence after the age of 21”.
Besides, isn’t it you birthers who claim Obama can’t be a real American because he grew up in Indonesia (in part) under “Muslim influence”? So obviously those 14 years of residence don’t mean squat when it comes to allegiance, do they?
> besides the best security imaginable, being free from ALL foreign influences and claims, a natural born Citizen’ soli & sanguinis.
You continue to ignore my previous example of someone who applies to your bogus NBC definition, yet becomes a dual citizen *after* his birth and continues to hold that dual citizenship. That obviously creates a “foreign claim” (because, for example, Turkey or North Korea would care little if their citizens were born citizens or naturalized later when it comes to executing their “claim” on them) despite the Founders’ alleged “best security imaginable”.
So in your birther world, you could have a US president who has been a (dual) Iranian citizen for 49 of the 50 years of his life and *still is one* during his presidency!
(Of course this is also possible in the real world, it just shows your argument that you only need two citizen parents to be free from foreign influence is simply absurd.)
Consequently, if the Founders had really intended what you claim, were they stupid that they didn’t put “no dual citizens” into the Constitution and cared only about the status at birth?
See, there’s another reason to call you “birthers”. You somehow believe “allegiance” and “claim” arise through birth alone and anything the person does afterwards has no significance. FAIL AGAIN.
Not even a good try Nancy dear, do attempt to work a little bit harder.
Document has typed and wtitten sections, you FAIL….again.
Then why were they OK with someone becoming President who lived for most of their lives outside of the U.S.? Why wasn’t it set that you had to be 35 years old and have resided in the U.S. for 35 years? (or 34?)
That would have reduced the level of foreign influence, wouldn’t it? Clearly they were OK with some level of “foreign influence”.
Consider that 35 years of residency within the US = 35 years.
That would be a higher level of allegiance than merely 14 years.
35 > 14
Not ALL foreign influences.
They allowed someone to live abroad, AS YOU ADMIT, for as much as 21 YEARS!
21 > 0
Well, duh.
And, it is obvious that they didn’t want the highest possible allegiance.
Since they allowed people to live abroad!
You are the one who is arguing that someone born here, immediately moves abroad and lives abroad for 60 years, moves back and spends 14 years here is as free of foreign influence as someone who has never lived abroad and has lived in the US for 74 years.
The Founders were obviously okay with some foreign influence.
You are clearly in denial.
QED.
He isn’t an American actually. He’s actually Australian, living in Australia. Which kind of gives his diatribes an additional sense of irony.
And yeah, full disclosure, I’m Irish, living in Ireland.
You know how there is that little principle both in English common law and Code Napoleon (he stole it from the English, like the juries) called “precedent”?
Tell me why Eisenhower should get a pass and Obama should not. As for your silliness about Obama’s history with Ayers and considering him both a radical Christian and a terrorist Muslim, consider this:
1) Eisenhower not only did not have a birthday certificate until his campaign, he did not even have a baptismal record until he was in the White House
2) like Hoover, Jefferson, and then some he did not reside in the USA for the preceding 14 years
3) it is clear now that durimng the War in Britain, he asked his acting commander for permission to divorce his wife in the US and marry his English+Irish chauffeur. If performed in Britain, that marriage would have given him British citizenship – which is probably why pertmission was refused.
4) at the end of his life, Ike went pacifist again (soemthing remained of the peculiar religion his parents had been practising, it seems) and denounced the industrial military complex.
There is only one reason why Eisenhower gets a pass and Obama does not and we all know what it is.
I wonder whether irony meters implode instead of exploding, South of the Equator. I will have to ask my nephew.
As for you, Michael, your arguments are still rorting, shonky and earbashing bowls of rice devoid of deadset
Is it your contention that for a person to be a natural born Citizen both parents must be citizens prior to that person’s birth and the person must be born on U.S. soil? Since this definition is not in the U.S. Constitution it can only be defined by Congress or Judicial rulings. Definitions extracted from your reading of extralegal materials do not count, only the law counts. Has Congress ever passed a law defining any circumstances under which a person is a “natural born Citizen”? The answer is yes and here is one such example from the Second Session of the First Congress, the Naturalization Act of 1790 which states, in part:
“the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.
So much for the bogus jus soli requirement; by the way the Naturalization Act of 1790 was signed into law by President George Washington.
It is readily obvious that someone mis-spoke when said the index was available by year, and it is only available by a 5 year period. Point is, the index is available for purchase, is not not? Considering the garbage you spew here, you are hardly one to throw the label of “lying.” As it turns out, since the index is produced in a 5 year span, the year of birth is not being disclosed, and everything fits in perfectly. Seems very logical to me, now that you have cleared it up that a single year index is not available. Logical and consistent with the statute.
Considering I doubt the phrase was intended to a scientific measure of exactly 50% of the text, I would say it is very subjective, and rather meaningless, short of there being little or no hand writing. And I’m sorry, you cannot treat what is for all intents and purposes a single event as “the standard used when judging the format of a birth certificate issued in August 1961.” Only an utter idiot would consider it to be indictive of anything. You cannot a single sample “the standard” to judge anything. Just like in statistics, the smaller the sample size, the less likely the results are going to have any meaning. There were over 17,500 babies born in Hawaii in 1961, and you’re going to make a sample of 2, .0001% of the births that year, to be the standard to compare all others to. Do you even remotely recognize how abjectly stupid that it?
Considering the subject nature of what she said, I see no inconsistency between “half hand written” and the Nordyke’s certificates. There is a good deal of handwriting on the document. And what about his use of the words “written down” (you may want to stop using quotes around “actually written” as he did not use those two words together. He said, “it actually exists in the achieves, written down.”)? It’s this stupid parsing of words to make clear statements mean either the exact opposite of their plain meaning or some nefarious other “hidden meaning” that makes birthers laughable. He said it’s in the archieves, written down. Just like “half written” is not a scientific measure, the use of written down in normal conversation is not exclusive of document containing typing. For the love of God, who the hell thinks like this in their normal conversations?
And this bizzare numerology is supposed to mean what exactly?
Except for the minor detail that “natural born citizen” has never included jus sanguinis.
Which is why they required the president to be a “natural born citizen.” A phrase they were all very familiar with due to its long history in the common law.
Well, apparently everyone but you, Mario, and Orly.
Yes, it we that are in denial. And by “we” I mean the entire US Supreme Court, every federal judge, 99.99% of the legal community, the vast majority of Congress, every civic books published since the late 19th century, and majority of the population of the United States. Yup….everyone else but the hand full of conspiracy nutes are in denial.
Thank you for yet another fact free post. We, in the reality based community enjoy an occasional fictional rant. At least they’re a little cleaner than the soft core spy novels of Mr. Lucas Smith.
> For the love of God, who the hell thinks like this in their normal conversations?
Obviously people who are deeply paranoid and hardly have any spoken conversation at all, filled with fear anything they say could be interpreted as an agreement to “shoot me right here on the spot”.
OTOH, people like nc1 have already shown that their dissection of words and phrases to discover “the true meaning” is open bigotry if it comes from a person who has no problem with openly lying and distorting facts.
Let’s make a thought experiment, nc1, shall we?
Suppose tomorrow the head of the Hawaiian DoH issues a statement “Barack Obama jr., President of the United States, was born in Hawaii at Kapiolani Hospital, delivered by Dr. Snook Snoogens, witnessed by nurse Sally Soonbuttom, as the child of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama sr.”.
What would you parse into this statement that still leaves something to be desired? Would that satisfy you? Or would you complain the statement does not include the birth registration number and the name of the ambulance driver who drove Ms. Dunham to Kapiolani?
> They allowed someone to live abroad, AS YOU ADMIT, for as much as 21 YEARS!
Actually, they allowed someone to live abroad for *at least* 21 years.
With only 14 years of residence required, someone could become president at the age of 84, having lived the past 70 years (!) under some ebil Marksist Mooslim gubnment in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
Or, splice it differently, lived from right after US birth to the age of 28, then again from 42 to 84 in that hypothetical evil country.
So in all periods of life where some kind of cultural imprint could be effected (childhood, adolescence, studying and old age) that person would have “lived under foreign influence”, possibly attended propaganda schools, worked in terror camps – all seemingly fine with the Founders.
And there goes the non-argument of “the Founders wanted X, so they did intend Y to mean Z” when neither X is true nor “Y means Z” is.
The state LAW still does not restrict access to the PERSON NAMED on the birth certificate to all of their birth records according to that portion of the law I quoted.
It is only current POLICY that what is normally sent out is just the short form when requesting a birth certificate. Note it wouldn’t make sense to NEVER send out more detailed information because many people need the more detailed information when doing genealogy research. For instance the more detailed information on the long form would be your mother’s and father’s address, the birth hospital, and birth doctor. You could imagine for example knowing the mother’s or father’s address or grandmother’s or grandfather’s address might help you find other members of your family, especially if you were now living in a different city.
Also, knowing your own birth hospital and doctor would help you track down important medical information you might need. So it would be unimaginable that you would have a situation that state law would make no provision for getting more detailed information about YOURSELF.
There is also the fact that when Gov. Abercrombie said he could not release any more information about Obama’s birth without Obama’s consent he was citing what he was told by the Attorney General. So it would not make sense that now the law is that even Obama himself could not release this information:
January 29, 2011
APNewsBreak: Hawaii won’t release Obama birth info.
Mark Niesse
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Jan/29/apnewsbreak__hawaii_won_t_release_obama_birth_info.html
Bob
So either:
1. President Obama is ignoring the birthers
2. President Obama is playing (some might say pwning) the birthers in order to use them to discredit the Republicans
Since there is absolutely nothing wrong with either course of action (I prefer #2 – which describes the birthers to a ‘T’…) it comes down to the birthers whining that the president is either ignoring them or being mean to them (by using their stupidity against his political opponents – in either case, it is far better treatment than any birther deserves.
An interested party can get that information. Mr Wisch told you how to do it-You go the the DOH and look at your file. I’m sure you can bring pen and pencil with you to write down the information. They just won’t issue it in the form of a photocopy or certificate, that’s all.
“So it would be unimaginable that you would have a situation that state law would make no provision for getting more detailed information about YOURSELF.”
So, in a nutshell, private details on a birth certificate are specifically meant for the person named on the certificate.
It’s private and personal information. Lunatic birthers, political enemies and the public in general have absolutely no right to private and personal information.
That makes sense.
It’s NOYFB.
A platoon of deranged birthers are champing at the bit to stalk and harass the family of the physician who delivered the President.
Since they probably cannot go further insane, let them rot in their own festering paranoia, arrogance and delusional sense of entitlement.
Transparency? Birther idiots use that as an excuse to violate privacy laws and greedily demand political dirt.
These deranged fools who have no intention on voting for the President but only to undermine, disparage and attempt to delegitimize deserve to be ignored.
Fukino was being figurative, you dimwit. She was clearly using “half” in the colloquial sense of “partially”. And that perfectly describes the condition of the Nordyke certificate.
The Founders did want to avoid “cabal, intrigue and corruption” in the selection of the President. They also felt confident that they had found the method:
and
The founders felt the process and the people could determine the qualifications from the available information and make the correct choice. Apparently, you do not agree with the founding fathers. Of course, they had trust in the people, though, apparently, you do not.
We do not need a “Guardian Council” to tell us who is eligible. We can determine that for ourselves, and, so far, we have been correct.
You said:
“And this bizzare numerology is supposed to mean what exactly?”
Answer: The ‘bizarre numerology’ is to demonstrate that 14 years residency was not the only eligibility criteria & was only one element of an overall age requirement for eligibility i.e 35 years old.
It’s perfectly reasonable that to arrive at 35 years, the founders considered the age of maturity being 21 years and added 14 years residency to it.
You said:
“Except for the minor detail that “natural born citizen” has never included jus sanguinis.”
Answer:
An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).
“children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:
Jus sanguinis!
You said:
“Which is why they required the president to be a “natural born citizen.”A phrase they were all very familiar with due to its long history in the common law.”
Answer:
From the long history of the common law.
Lord Coke – Calvin’s Case
“There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright”
TWO qualities …………… what do you suppose they are?
soli & sanguinis!
Coke:
“Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right”
TWO qualities ……………. what do they mean?
soli & sanguinis
Coke:
“that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”
TWO qualities …………… what do they mean?
soli & sanguinis
As Coke said …..
“that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl”
Baloon busted! ……………… learn to live with it.
Actually, they took the minimum age for a Representative (25 years) and added 5 years to get the minimum age for a Senator (30 years) and added 5 years to that to get the minimum age for the President (35 years).
They saw a progression of maturity in choosing those ages. The argument is much stronger that they considered 25 to be the age of majority, the age at which a man could represent his community to the country.
A Representative must have been a citizen for 7 years, and a Senator 9 years. Both must be a resident of the State they wish to represent, but there is no minimum residence period, either of the State, nor of the Country.
The Presidential residency requirement is clearly not related to anything such thing as attaining the age of 21. Reaching majority at 21 is a 20th century concept and was unknown in the 18th century, I believe.
Others with more immediate remembrances than I can describe why the residency period was put in place and how the figure was arrived at. I have to run away to dinner with much red wine and carousing.
1. Even 5 year cummulative birth index reveals more private information than the registration number (10641).
2. Why don’t you present another birth certificate from 1961 if you want to dismiss Nordyke certificates’ format? Absent any other evidence – two Nordyke certificates represent the long form birth certificate format.
3. I used the proper quote from Abercrombie’s interview:
“It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down …”
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20110118_This_is_a_collaborative_endeavor.html
I heard that good lawyers know answers before posting questions – I assume that they would not rant about a topic without checking the facts first.
You ignored Abercrombie’s “actually written” comment. Combine his and Fukino’s statement and you have a description that does not fit Nordyke certificates. I look at both comments as describing an exception to the most prevalent birth certificates.
> Why don’t you present another birth certificate from 1961 if you want to dismiss Nordyke certificates’ format?
You’re the one claiming Obama’s BC is “off”. So the burden of proof is on you.
> Absent any other evidence – two Nordyke certificates represent the long form birth certificate format.
Since they’re twins, obviously you can’t count them as “two”. Had Obama been a twin, he’d have two COLBs as well.
> As Coke said …..
> “that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl”
Again you’re lying and deceiving by using the quote out of context when in reality this quote refers to the children of alien invaders:
“But if enemies should come into any of the King’s dominions, and surprise any castle or fort, and possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the King’s ligeance or obedience.”
Why do you have to lie, is your truth not strong enough, birfer?
http://www.genfiles.com/legal/legalage.htm
“Under the common law, full majority was reached at the age of 21. Anyone under 21 was legally an infant. Only persons who had reached majority could perform certain legal actions:”
Doesn’t matter if they are aliens from mars come to take over the planet
THE POINT IS,
father (and that includes his wife, who takes the husbands status) not a subject = the kid’s not a subject, even if born jus soli.
Considering that the judgment in Calvins case was that Calvin could own land despite the fact that both his parents were Alien, and in that era aliens could not own English land, that’s once again a complete load of tosh.
But then it had to be explained to you that Calvins case was about land ownership. And that the Frenchman was not called Sherley.
So your saying there was absolutely no part of the Nordyke BCs that included handwriting? 🙂
Its quite entertaining to watch you birthers tie yourselves into knots btw.
Sherley Eugeste??
Also you are forgetting that Cov Albercombie never actually saw the BC. He does not have the right to as govener. He was parsing what he was told by someone else at the end of an interview dealing with far more important stuff
> THE POINT IS,
> father (and that includes his wife, who takes the husbands status) not a subject = the kid’s not a subject, even if born jus soli.
Then why was Calvin talking about “enemies” and not simply about “aliens” in that sentence? Are you know claiming that Calvin “meant to say something else” to read something into his statement that tries to totally contradict what he really said?
Might as well claim that Dr Fukino forgot a “not” when she said “Obama was born in Hawaii”, will get you just as far, you lying fool.
> You ignored Abercrombie’s “actually written” comment. Combine his and Fukino’s statement and you have a description that does not fit Nordyke certificates.
You ignore (again) that Abercrombie’s “actually written” comment does *not* refer to the birth certificate. He was trying to find *other records* that he was legally allowed to release. And those records are what he is referring to in that sentence (the sentence and its context make that very clear, you liar).
And it was these other records that turned out to be non-releasable by law as well.
So the only thing Abercrombie did not find were “documents other than the BC that he could legally release”. Yet you lying treasonous birfer idiots try to twist this into “he can’t find the BC”. You’re pathetic and have the IQ of a brick. A very small brick.
that children of diplomats and invading armies are not natural born subjects. All others are by virtue of their birth within the jurisdiction.
In fact, Calvin’s Case is precisely about Calvin being a natural born subject in England, and his father remaining an alien in England.
If you claim differently, you’re in fact claiming that Calvin’s Case was wrongly decided.
Let’s suppose that it was. The legal implications through the ages would be far fetching and you would need thousands of Tardises (or is it Tardes) to clean it up, and even Your Hero Svetlana (WBUH) does not command so many.
There is no such thing as British citizenship. The British Empire is a fraudulent Fata Morgana that was based on a horrible misinterpretation of Common Law.
So:
1) Obama never had British citizenship, but only US citizenship, as his father was stateless.
2) The British Empire illegally took possession of Australia and used it as a gigantic HM’s Prison. Elementary justice would demand that the descendants of those prisoners now go back to Blighty and serve out the time their forefathers never legally served, in the British penal system. Leaving the whole of Australia to the Aborigines, the lawful owners of the land.
Tempting, is it not, Michael?
Thank you for the correction.
WRONG! aliens could purchase land, they couldn’t inherit nor their children inherit from them.
BTW, Calvin ALREADY owned the land, the matter was taken to court on his behalf to retain it & maintain his freehold title.
“Robert Calvin, gent. hath complained to us, that Richard Smith and Nicholas Smith, unjustly, and without judgment, have disseised him of his freehold in |[1 b] Haggard, otherwise Haggerston, otherwise Aggerston, in the parish of St. Leonard, in Shoreditch, within thirty years now last past; and therefore we command you, that if the said Robert shall secure you to prosecute his claim, then that you cause the said tenement to be reseised with the chattels which within it were taken,”
Coke speaks of an alien purchasing land.
“When an alien born purchaseth any lands, the King onely shall have them, though they be holden of a subject, in which case the subject loseth his Seigniorie.”
Ergo: aliens could purchase English land.
You are WRONG!
Re: ‘Sherley’
‘Sherley’ is a name of many in England and no doubt also of France, considering the mixing that was going on in 17th century and prior.
Thomas Sherley for example.
http://www.campdenwonder.plus.com/People.htm
If you look at the spelling in, the text of Calvin’s case, of other words with a root ‘sure’, you will find no ‘sh’ substituting for ‘su’, so it is very likely Coke was using ‘Sherley’ as a name.
e.g. “sureties” – “sure”
Look for yourself …
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27
and………….
Coke would have said ‘Sherley IF a Frenchman ……”
Like? I haven’t looked at the image in a couple of days, but the only information I recall being on it was exactly what the statute required. Please feel free to dig up the link and prove me wrong.
Because the burden is not on me to prove anything. It’s on you. You are the one that is challenging prima facia evidence. You are the one challening the COLB. “Absent any other evidence” the President has already established he was born in Hawaii. Unless you can come up with more, the two Nordyke certificates are a meaningless curiosity.
I stand corrected. I didn’t realize there were multiple quotes (see, that is what those of us in the reality based community do when shown our errors). But it doesn’t change anything. “Written down” is not exclusive of typed documents. It’s just another silly birther word game to parse words to point of utter sillyness. Do you think that if a partner tells me to “write a memo” and I hand him a hand written document, I’ll have my job for very long?
Perhaps if, as many birthers claim, every Obot was on the Soros payroll, and I was getting a check for this, I would actually check everything out. But the reality is, poking a sharp, pointy stick at birthers is merely a past time to get me through the day, so I don’t. Congrats, you caught me on a meaningless point. Now if you could only get over all the real issues of fact that are against you, you’d actually be making progess.
Not this again. Don’t you find it strange, that despite all the lawyers and legal scholars that have looked at Calvin’s case in the past 400 years, only you, who I can only assume has no legal training what so every, has come to the conclusion that being natural born requires anything more than jus soli?
> to parse words to point of utter sillyness.
That’s why birthers are full of silly utterness. 😉
> Don’t you find it strange
No, he just believes in a conspiracy that is much older than the one the other birfers believe (which, depending on their faction, begins either shortly after the Constitution or shortly before Obama’s birth).
Calvin’s dad was an alien. All people born before James became King of Scotland remain aliens.
And, here’s the kicker, Michael. It matters exactly zero what MichaelN believed Calvin’s Case said. It matters what JamesM believed Calvin’s Case said when JamesM wrote the Constitution.
And JamesM believed what WBlackstone wrote about Calvin’s Case.
And, guess what, every scholar, every single source that has looked at Calvin’s Case has seen Calvin’s dad REMAINING an alien, Calvin being born TO AN ALIEN and Calvin being born a SUBJECT because he was born on the soil of England, not because of some strange pseudo-subjecthood that only existed during that one sentence.
Calvin’s dad wasn’t even a subject to the end of the case:
If your partner gave you a typed document that you had to sign and date the signature – would you think that this document was “actually written” or “half handwritten?
It is so obvious that Abercrombie and Fukino have not described the long form birth certificate (Nordyke type) but something else, contradicting the official birthplace story.
The complete line is “When an alien born purchaseth any lands, the King onely shall have them, though they be holden of a subject, in which case the subject loseth his Seigniorie. And as it is said in our Books, an Alien may purchase but the act of Law giveth the alien nothing: And therefore if a woman alien marrieth a subject, she shall not be endowed, neither shall an alien be tenant by the courtesy.”
Which seems to suggest that Not only could an alien not buy land he could not even rent it.
BUT even if you are right Micheal, you CANNOT ARGUE that the conclusion of the case was that Calvin was not an Alien despite his Alien parents because he was born on soil, as he could inherit the land
Which is why you are trying to distract me with technicalities because you cant disagree with the basic solid conclusion. Calvin won, as the court ruled he was not an alien as he was born on soil regardless of the parents.
Take a blood pressure pill. I know its hard that the rest of the planet thinks you are wrong, and not even Mario Apuzzo will take you seriously, and he will latch onto every bad interpretation of law he can vaguely spin.
Sherley it seems that you are not content with being wrong on what Calvins case means, you are now trying to pass yourself an expert on 16 century grammar. You are completely wrong as usual, Mike. If Lord Coke wanted to give a name to the frenchman, sherley he would have used the name elsewhere. Instead he continuously spoke of “the Frenchman.”
Sherley it cannot be that you are wrong again.
Well lets see, if someone that hadn’t seen the document said it was written down and another person who had actually seen said document said it was half or partially handwritten because some of it had signatures, I would not see any problems with either statement at all.
“It is so obvious that Abercrombie and Fukino have not described the long form birth certificate (Nordyke type) but something else, contradicting the official birthplace story.”
Obvious to whom?
To a deranged, barely literate Serbian lunatic with poor makeup choices cowardly hiding from her past while living in the U.S. illegally who fears and deeply despises all black people?
Many birthers have this odd habit of fantasizing that sane people believe they are credible and lucid.
Yes, the document is “actually written.” The use of the word “written” is not exclusive of being typed. Now as for what constitutes “half hand written” it depends on the document. It’s a very subjective call. A single page form with spaces for check marks, signatures, and dates, and not knowing the normal balance is between what entries could possibly be hand notations, really cannot establish anything. As far as I am concerned it neither establishes that the President’s birth certificate is the rule or exception. There just isn’t enough information to make any kind of determination.
The only think that is obvious is that you have a very unhealthy obsession with this. There is nothing in their statements that is indicative of anything contradicting the official birth story. It’s just silly word games by birthers, and nothing more.
She’s nitpicking and parsing every word because that’s all she can do. It’s desperate and pathetic.
The sad and funny part is that she’s a compulsive bigot who will post here until either she dies or the blog shuts down all the while convincing not one sane person of her utter stupidity.
*sigh*
I used to think it would be fun to have a couple birthers to bat around. Now it’s gotten annoying. Maybe I should take a week or two off from this blog.
Anyone know of a rough equivalent that tackles 9/11 truthers? I have a Truther uncle and I’d love some fresh material next time he wanders into town (literally wanders–he’s been a professional vagrant for nearly 30 years).
She did that with her first comment.
nc1-Let’s try this one. We now know that the certificate was signed by a doctor. We also know that it was filed on Aug 8, 1961. Can you give me some halfway plausible story how a baby born in Kenya on Aug 4, 1961 could be brought back to Hawaii in time to be examined by a doctor on Aug 8 at the very latest? Don’t bother with “the birth took place much earlier”, because it’s quite easy to tell a 2-week old from a 3 or 4-day old baby.
I will give you a mulligan this time on explaining the passport problem which I have laid out before, but I reserve the right t ask you about it later.
Hey America, did you expect anything more for the “transparent one”? The won that just got an award for being transparent. The won that said “A democratic government fully accountabile to the people must be as transparent as possible and must NOT with hold information for self serving purposes or simply to avoid embarrassment”. The only American afraid to release his birth certificate.Trump released his- no big deal. Where’s the hospital of birth. What are you so afraid of ? Ineligible? Been lying? Common sense says no long-form,Kenyan dad and sealed records= 3 strikes your out! And please don’t throw the ball back!
“Hey, America”? Wow. Someone forget to take meds.
Wow…You got us. We’ve never heard that one before. We’re speechless.
Why do drive by birthers think they can impress anyone by repeating the same debunked lies?
Why don’t you bring up the “pakistani travel ban” or the billions and billions of dollars he spent to keep everything “sealed” or perhaps is executive order “sealing” his records?
Proceed directly to idiot jail. Do not pass Go, Do not collect $200.
What is it with birthers and the English language?
Not all stupid people are birthers, but all birthers are …
Fukino (cunning as a sewer rat that she is) did not say it was signed by a doctor in Hawaii, nor confirm the hospital, when she now has free license to confirm the hospital ………. she didn’t.
Fukino is careful with her deliberately crafty, ambiguous and misleading statements.
All Fukino has really said that there is a record on file, could be reporting a birth anywhere, that is signed by a doctor.
How does she know the signature is that of a doctor?
How do we know you’re not a severely mentally challenged serial killer dressed in your mummy’s underwear while posting from your last victim’s blood soaked keyboard?
Idiot.
Dunno. Maybe a check mark next to “M.D.” in the “Signature of Attendant” area? Of course I’ve seen plenty of birth certificate images where the signatures can’t be deciphered.
The Hawaii DOH only keeps records of births in Hawaii. How does she know it was signed by a doctor? Because the box where the signature is says “Doctor’s signature”. Believe it or not,, the state actually has records of which doctors are licensed.
Ok. Lets say the ex-government employee that gave a phone interveiw is telling the truth.Barry was born in Hawaii at a hospital and has a long-form and is a NBC. Why not release it and finish the birthers? What could be so damaging that he his willing to pay lawyers over 2 million dollars to keep it sealed? Funny name like Soebarkah?- NOPE Muslim religion -Nah. Been lying about something important?- Maybe but what? What could be on the long-form that’s not on the ammended COLB? Maybe something with the father? Any-hoo he’s gonna show it to us soon with the new states eligibility laws and then we won’t have to guess.
Coke only spoke of THAT Frenchman on one instance.
An alien could purchase land, but only to use for himself, could not inherit it, bequeath it or sell it, if he tried to, the king got it.
Calvin’s parents as ante nati, were not NBS like Calvin, but they were subjects of the sovereign by local ligeance, hence like the Frenchman who was also a subject by local ligeance, their child Calvin, was a NBS.
The fact remains, that it was the subject status of the parent father that was crucial as to whether a child was a NBS or not.
I have shown you that other words used by Coke that had the same root ‘sure’ were not expressed starting with ‘sh’.
I have shown you that ‘Sherley’ is a name that was in use in 17th century.
Had Coke meant ‘Sherley’ to mean ‘surely’, then he would have said ‘Sherley IF a Frenchman’
‘WERE TO COME into England’ etc etc
Coke spoke of the antics of the Frenchman describing events that had happened and not proposing a possible scenario.
I will capitalize the operative words or parts thereof.
“Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, CAME into England, and joynED with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concludED contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owED to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he WAS within the King’s protection …..”
You attempt at ad hominem is so pathetic, what has Mario Apuzzo got to do with what Coke meant by the use of ‘Sherley’ or whether aliens can purchase land in 17th century England?
Calvin’s parents were alien born, that’s what ‘alien’ meant in 17th century, ‘alien born’.
Calvin’s alien born parents were subjects by local ligeance, otherwise without any ligeance to the sovereign, their child would not be a NBS.
“And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject”
Because Calvin’s parents were not enemies, they were subjects by local ligeance and as such, their child Calvin, was a NBS.
The status of the parent was crucial.
Ah I gotta love Birthers- whenever they talk about the esteemed Dr. Fukino they like to insult her but moving on- whenever they talk about how she doesn’t say what is obvious to us, and say she is ‘ambiguous and misleading’ they leave out this statement:
“Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and is a Natural Born citizen”
Nothing ambiguous or misleading there. The Birth certificate issue is a distraction- the State of hawaii has clearly and unambiguously confirmed that just as the COLB says, that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
Game over,
Door shut.
Elevator going down.
Blah, blah blah.
Justice Scalia: Natural born- that jus soli right?
I want to see a Birther making this argument in from of Scalia.
Please.
The quality of birther trolls sure is plummeting.
You know Az. just passed an eligibility law right? So Barry’s gonna have to produce that “long-form ” eventually in order to run 2012. Just a crazy comment from a birther.Crazy,stupid,dumb,crazy right?
If the President needs a longer birth certificate than the current COLB in order to be on the ballot in Arizona (or any other state), I’m certain that Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii (Obama’s former Hawaii campaign manager) will be glad to order one to be specially printed up for him.
However the US Constitution (Article 2, Section 1) only requires date of birth to insure age 35 and over and place of birth within the continental US. The additional requirement is 14 years residence in the US. That’s not found on a birth record.
TARDIS is an acronym, so it would be TARDISs, I believe… (the acronym itself is pretty much word salad to begin with).
Not really how many electoral votes did Obama get from Arizona? Oh yeah that was 0 he never needed Arizona to win. You have to feel bad for Arizona their legislature is making the rest of the state look extreme.
Arizona’s SENATE has passed a birther bill. The thing hasn’t been passed yet. Feck sake what is it with you birthers.
Personally I’m waiting for the horror when all the Republican primary candidates find they can’t fulfill its restrictions…
You know that even a first year law student could tell you that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and all it will take is the DNC to file a Motion for Permanent Injuction enjoining the state from enforcing the law, and Arizona will be forced setting with the COLB at best?
Oh right so every other time he spoke of a frenchman it was a different frenchman, not name sherley. Sherley you cant be serious…
Seriously Micheal you should send this to scholar in English common law. I think he would enjoy a good laugh.
CONGRATULATIONS MR NORRIS! You just described US citizenship law. I’m really happy to lead you out of birthism.
See what happens when you try and expand out of your set little narrow talking points that include 1% of Lord Cokes ruling? You run straight into the facts that lead to what everyone has agreed on for 400 years. Jus Soli.
Back to ignoring you.
Good to see you Obama lawyers are on top things. Hey, Do you guys think the American people will ever see that long-form? Trump coughed his up pretty quickly.
No other president has ever published his birth certificate to the general public. And trump only published a copy of his vital records AFTER showing off his hospital souvenir cert, which is useless for any legal action, AND THEN showing his CERTIFICATION of birth, which he has been using since 1999. Which means he must have used it to renew his passport at least once.
After saying Certifications were easy to get and totally useless for anything. What a guy eh?
Here’s a good place to start:
http://911myths.com/index.php/Main_Page
(this site has been reborn as a wiki since I last checked it, but the old site was good and a cursory look around suggest that the new site is, too…)
Also, you might look at this:
http://debunking911.com/
(no idea if it’s been updated recently)
Here’s a quick primer on truthers:
(controlled demolition) = (two citizen parents)
(Physics) = ( US Constitution and law)
(Dr. Steven Jones [founder of JONES {the Journal of 9/11 Studies (a journal he founded and appointed an editor to who would ‘peer-review’ his articles…)} and former cold fusion researcher {and chemtrail believer}]) = (a sort of Frankenstein’s monster with the equivalent of Orly’s ethics, Mario’s legal acumen, the professional credibility of Lucas Smith, and the value of Vattel as a legal precedent on the Constitution)
The physics is a slam-dunk regarding buildings collapsing as a result of aircraft impacts (for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7) and any arguments about ‘explosions’ or excessive heat in the rubble or the manner of collapse or the time of collapse or the seismic record are the equivalent of Butterdezillion or Miss Tickly or Ladysforest ‘analyzing’ the birth announcements). The rest of the debunking (regarding the pentagon, it being a false flag attack, etc.) is solid as well (my interest is primarily in the physics).
If your uncle brings up Dr. Jones then he is probably pretty hard core (Dr. Jones is the primary advocate that a physically impossible controlled demolition using thermite [and maybe some other stuff if they need it {even if that other stuff was more than sufficient to cause all of the observed effects (plus would have had major effects which weren’t noticed) on its own} but there has to be thermite because my ‘Polarik home test kit’ said so…] was used to bring down the towers [in precisely the manner that would be expected if they failed due to the airplane impacts, by the way…]) – Dr. Jones is vulnerable to criticism for his ethics, the chain of custody of his samples, the lack of controls for his samples, the lack of scientific rigor in his work, and the lack of evidence to support the conclusions that he makes in his papers and gets the same presumption of credibility with truthers that the birthers give to any source they believe supports their position… I’d take that as a sign to tread carefully (really, I’d tread carefully from the beginning – I doubt that hard-core trutherism is much easier on families that hard-core birtherism seems to be.
Hope that helps.
Doc,
Sorry for the off-topic post…
So what exactly are you guys good for? Oyeah, hiding Obama’s records from the American voters. You got to be prowd of that!
Probably not, since the state of Hawaii doesn’t release it anymore. Perhaps you should lobby the Hawaiian state government to change the form they release vital records?
After 2 1/2 years, are you incapable of making a judgement based on his actions as President? Suppose you think he’s a bad President, what in his past would change that? On the other hand, suppose you think he’s a good President, what in his past would change that? I really don;t understand and ask the question sincerely.
I make really nice Cinnamon Rolls.
We’re very good at predicting birther failure. So far we’ve been 100% correct on our predictions.
Your dreamin’.
US citizenship for aliens requires application, due process, acceptance and an oath of allegiance.
England = subject if you are not from an enemy place & then a child of the subject can be a NBS.
USA = citizen if born in the land or otherwise accepted (naturalized) upon application & due process & then the child can be a NBC.
Completely different criteria to establish base subject/citizen status.
Both England & USA required the status of the parent father to be subject/citizen, for a child to a natural born subject/citizen.
The English automated subjecthood without any application or process except when legal ligeance was required on the part of the alien born at which time the alien born had to swear an oath.
e.g.
Coke:
“legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the Torn or Leet.Ligeantia naturalis.”
So as you can see, for an alien born to be under the legal jurisdiction, he must swear an oath of allegiance.
But in England an alien born who doesn’t seek to have legal ligeance, is a subject, automated by local ligeance, but he has no legal standing.
That’s why an alien in US is neither a citizen by local allegiance, because USA (unlike England) doesn’t accept alien born as citizens merely because they are visiting, nor are such alien born visitors accepted as citizens by legal allegiance, because to be consistent with English common law, to have legal allegiance, the alien born must swear an oath of allegiance.
No matter who or what you believe, the fact remains that according to English common law, it is the subject/citizenship status of the parent father that is crucial in determining who can be a natural born subject/citizen.
Here read it and weep.
“neither the climate NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT”
I know it’s hard for you to accept this fact, but you will just have to learn to live with it while wallowing in your pathetic ad hominem ridden delusion.
The subject/citizen status of the parent father is crucial in determining natural born subject/citizen status of the child.
Yeah, Barry’s protected as “president” but don’t get too excited yet because most of the independents/taxpayers smell a rat and concealing the most basic American document doesn’t sit well.
YAWN! Do you really think you’re adding anything new? It’s the same birther BS we’ve seen before.
Ignore the troll.
A troll that is just asking for some transparency/accountability from our president. Do trolls really just want to see factual information? Maybe you guys are the trolls. What the heck?
I realize that you believe this crank legal theory, but I think you have repeated often enough already.
I do a carrot cake.
*yawn*
ALSO:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Sorry, the game has long been over for you birther clowns. You can keep repeating the same concern troll lies over and over and over again, but you simply are likely to NEVER see your precious “long form”, no matter what.
If AZ passes their bill into law, they would lose any court case if they tried to use it to not accept the HI COLB.
Federal FFAC will always trump state stupidity and birther stupidity.
Sorry, you FAIL and lose no matter what. Go back to crying in your corner.
I’m fairly certain that we’ll see the long form, at least I will if I live to be 86 years old when Hawaiian birth records for Obama will become public. I really think it will come out before the 2012 election, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
Game not over. Remember the American people smell a rat. Come on the president won’t show the most basic American document?
Sorry, but it is. The HI COLB is the basic American document and there is nothing you can do about that. He’s had that shown since 2008 and you’ve been repeatedly shown the official proof that HI doesn’t issue any other form for this. So yeah, game way past over. Official state policies beat losers with their fingers in their ears screaming the same debunked lie over and over and over again.
In case you’ve forgotten the American people includes ALL of us. You losers and whiners and stupid birthers are an insignificant and meaningless part of that equation.
Over 9.5 million more voters voted for Obama over McCain. The birthers and PUMAs and tea-party folks out there are already part of the equation that lost out to the rest of us. Simply put, you folks didn’t vote for him last time and he doesn’t need your vote in 2012. You are simply irrelevant to the election equation.
What the Tea Partiers and the most rabid conservatives choose not to pay attention to is that there is not universal happiness with Barack Obama among liberals.
A moderate or less than foaming at the mouth Republican could very well gain many of the voters who chose Obama because his message was more inclusive than the Republicans.
But if the Republicans field a Sarah Palin or some other ideological rightwing radical, the left and most independents wil overlook Obama’s flaws and vote for the more sane candidate.
They are willfully blind to this. Ideology, insanity and anger seems to rule their voting base now and is further supported by many of the “leaders” that the base actually listens to (whether it is Rush or Beck or some other RW radio/tv host or existing Tea-Party congress critters or more importantly – Jim DeMint in the Senate).
Therefore, it seems less and less likely that you will end up with anything other than an ideological right wing radical as their nominee at this point. Although Rove and others would like to stop the damage and get someone like Romney elected, I think they are past the point of critical mass crazy to pull that off.
The President’s birth certificate has been available on the internet for the whole wide world to see since 2008.
His birth certificate has been authenticated by the former Hawaii Governor and the Hawaii Department of Health.
Barack Hussein Obama II was born at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii, in the United States of America.
If President Obama isn’t transparent enough for you, feel free to vote against him in the next election and if enough people feel the way you do, the President will be defeated at the polls in 2012.
Jleinf,
Obama showed his dedication to government transparency by signing an executive order on his first day in office that removed the restrictions placed on Presidential records by the Bush admin (the least transparent admin in history).
It is almost identical to what President Reagan signed.
Can you believe that many birthers actually lie about this, and claim the order does the opposite of what it actually does? Birthers are too lazy to read for themselves, or else they would know the truth.
And yet England has a naturalization application, due process, acceptance and oath of allegiance. In fact, at the time of the Revolution, they had at least two different processes, by which one could become either a denizen or a naturalized subject.
Why didn’t anyone tell them that they didn’t need all that folderol, anyone who stepped foot on English soil was an English subject?
That’s gotta be why the English empire failed! They were wasting the equivalent of trillions of dollars naturalizing (and denizing) people who were already subjects! (Wait, if every alien was already a subject, why did they have the category of denizen, which was less than subject? Did that take away rights from those automatic subjects that didn’t want the burdens of being subjects?)
So, wait, what’s your evidence that the US adopted some different theory of citizenship? That the US requires a naturalization process which England employs, too?
Michael, your arguments are so circular they’re going to be incorporated into a remake of Dead or Alive’s “You Spin Me Right Round.”
You spin me right round, Michael
right round like a record, Michael
Right round round round
“But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.
“It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.”
—————————————————————————————————————–
What Hawaiian statute or state law is he talking about?
Here’s one that I know of that says the HDoH ‘SHALL’ issued certified documents of either an image copy of the original, a copy of all the contents or a copy of part of the contents.
§338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.
(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.
(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]
The difference between the various methods of the English, was to do with varying degrees of rights and priveleges, such as, duration, property, inheritance and legal standing.
Basic American Document? You mean a document that didn’t exist until early in the 20th century? Many presidents never had birth certificates.
During the congressional debates on the naturalization act of 1790, Representative Jackson said,
“I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone I, 10. “Naturalization,” says he, “cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King’s legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it.” So that here we find, in the nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely, necessary to be pursed in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners.”
So, first he quotes from Blackstone’s Commentaries and then he says that we got are ideas on naturalization from England.
In the same debate, Representaive Burke said,
“The case of children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III.”
DoH claimed that a one year birth index for 1961 could be purchased from them. This information was given to a journalist who published it in his article. Had nobody tried to obtain this index we would have never known that the DoH public statement was a lie. Therefore, a statement by a former DoH official must be verified before it can be trusted.
You assume that a doctor signed the document – we don’t know whether this is true. Even if it is true we don’t know when it took place. You also assume that registration was completed on the same date it was filed (August 8, 1961).
It is very imortant to verify whether DoH issued COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007 and whether the number 10641 belongs to Obama’s birth index. A negative answer on any of these two questions would indicate that the official birthplace story is not true. If answers to these two questions confirmed FactCheck images – Kenyan birth scenario would be destroyed.
I do not think that Obama can obtain a COLB from DoH that would contain the same information as shown on FactCheck images. These are simple confirmations that do not require Obama’s consent. Given Abercrombie’s motivation and enthusiasm to resolve the birther issue it is quite striking that he would not confirm supposedly trivial information.
Well, duh, yes. The document had to be signed before it could be filed. Isn’t that obvious?
It is obvious only if you blindly trust Fukino’s words.
Otherwise you could think of other possibilities:
1. Forged doctor’s signature on home birth registration
2. Late home birth registration.
…
Read my previous post with these things in mind.
> Otherwise you could think of other possibilities:
1. Forged doctor’s signature on home birth registration
You forgot “alien lizard people manipulating everybody’s brains” and “the Devil creating the BC out of thin air”.
As long as you take the “everything could be forged and everyone could be lying” route, no-one can help you find back to reality.
I wonder how you get through everyday life. Are you sure the traffic light is really green? Or that it’s an official traffic light and not a forgery? Or that the cop asking you to pull over is really a cop and not a robber in disguise? Or an alien who wants to abduct you? You are really sad.
> If answers to these two questions confirmed FactCheck images – Kenyan birth scenario would be destroyed.
No, you would simply keep claiming the DoH is lying.
> Can you believe that many birthers actually lie about this, and claim the order does the opposite of what it actually does?
Yes, it’s a common crank meme.
The other day, a crank on my law forum made some wild claims, supported by some alleged quotes from the Hague Convention. When I posted the articles he cited verbatim, showing not one word he quoted actually appears there, he moved the goalposts.
In another case, a guy claimed that he does not only read the laws but also the law commentaries and posted a reference to a specific note. I googled it and found the note is not found anywhere on the net, but a reference that purports to paraphrase the note was used on some crank sites. So I challenged him to quote me the note verbatim if he, as he claimed, had the commentary before him. Of course he never answered that challenge…
These people just read what others write, never the original sources. Thus perpetuateth the legend with things like “Abercrombie says he can’t find the BC” or “Obama’s executive order #…. seals his personal records”.
> Birthers are too lazy to read for themselves, or else they would know the truth.
Why would they want to know it, it would destroy what they’ve believed for so long. They’ve got their psychological self-protection processes working in full effect.
Fritz, did you bother to read my previous post?
“DoH claimed that a one year birth index for 1961 could be purchased from them. This information was given to a journalist who published it in his article. Had nobody tried to obtain this index we would have never known that the DoH public statement was a lie. Therefore, a statement by a former DoH official must be verified before it can be trusted”
Dr. Fukino was in charge of DoH telling lies to us.
Sorry, the claims that Hawaii officials lied originates from Butterdezellion, a notorious birther liar, mental case, and someone who sees “codes” in statements that aren’t there.
Very similar to you.
Her research is garbage, her conclusions are faulty, and her ability to read & understand simple instructions is on par with Orly.
No one is going to take crazy ol’ butter’s word over Dr. Fukino or any other Hawaiian official.
Here is your homework- Study the above bolded words. They answer many of your question, if you can understand what the words mean…
Fritz?
Well its a good thing the anti Obama crowd aren’t into hurling racist epithets or I might think you are being a bit racist there, old girl.
Let’s take the case of anyone who is approximately 50 years old, whose parents are dead and who is an only child or eldest child. That means there are no living witnesses to their birth. Let’s say they have a hospital-filed birth certificate. That couldn’t be fake, could it? Of course it could. A corrupt clerk in the hospital or inside DOH could complete a fake registration and insert it into the files. How would you prove 50 years later what happened? Medical records would be long gone and any medical personnel still alive couldn’t possibly remember a specifc birth out of all the ones they attended.
In fact, the supposed gold standard Nordyke twins certificates could be fake. If the senior Mrs Nordyke were not alive, I could say they were born in Canada, brought across the border and fake certificates created for them in Hawaii and you couldn’t possibly prove me wrong.
Well, the number is a bit out of sequence with Obama’s, so it may be fake…
Isn’t there a rule limiting the number of ‘fnords’ that can appear in one paragraph? If you post too many they might suddenly become visible.
Has any official authority ever challenged Dr. Fukino? Has any state or federal congressional committee subpoenaed her to testify under oath? Has any grand jury prosecutor deposed her?
When Dr. Fukino did testify before the Hawaii state Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary and Government Operations she confirmed that “…the President posted a copy of his birth certificate on his former campaign web site.”
NO official from the state of Hawaii has EVER stated that the President’s COLB is forged, amended or altered in any way.
“The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–Representative John Boehner (R-OH), Speaker of the House of Representatives
“The President was, in fact, born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact. It’s been established. He was born here.”–[former]Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI).
It is obvious you blindly trust deranged BZ’s words.
Sorry, I’ll take a trusted state official discussing matters within their purview over a paranoid delusional lunatic any day.
Put your money where your mouth is NC1 and order the records yourself.
Why are you too chicken to do that? What are you afraid of?
We have no reason to doubt them, and they are given the presumption of truthfulness. She is a government employee speaking in her role as the custodian of records.
Just because someting is possible, doesn’t make it probable, and in the absence of any evidence, doesn’t make it worth consideration. The sad reality for you is you have nothing but you unsupported accusations.
Considering it was filed a couple days after his birth, how is that possible.
Yes…they are consistent with your mental disease. Please get treatment.
Birthers are afraid of Occam’s Razor because the last crank who tried to use it cut himself with it and bled to death…
The birthers (at least this one) seem to operate on the principle that if they can think of something then it happened, or was highly probable to have happened. I wonder how often they visit Las Vegas. They make perfect marks.
Looks like Miki Booth ain’t lying about the HDoH issuing a ‘lon form’ BC in March this year 2011
http://jesbeard.com/?p=33
“The name of the attending physician on the Booth “long form” Certificate of Live Birth is Daphne L Jones. (Although there is no physician listed in Hawaii by the name of Daphne L. Jones, there is a physician by that name practicing in Russelville, AL, with a website profile listing her practice areas as obstetrics and gynecology, further indicating she graduated from medical school in 1991, and has been practicing medicine for 16 years. http://www.vitals.com/doctors/Dr_Daphne_Jones.html
The Booth “long form” Certificate of Live Birth is for a birth in 1995, 16 years ago.
Dr. Jones office on April 13, 2011, in responding to an email from this writer confirmed that Dr. Jones in 1995 was practicing in Hawaii.”
———————————————————————
Hey Fukino, what’s the doctor’s name on Obama’s (ahem) ‘birth certificate’, now that you are no longer acting in an official capacity, it should be no problem divulging this information.
Oooops!
The Kenyan Government Official James Orengo:
“If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation, how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the President of America?”
Born in Kenya – adopted in Hawaii (by granny) = a new Hawaiian BC with the original sealed.
You know, sometimes things are just so stoopid you just cant help responding.
Micheal, just because a doctor was practicing in Hawai’i in 1995 is no proof that she didn’t get that long form in 2001 WHEN THEY WERE AVAILABLE and then change the date from 2001 to 2011. Unlike president Obama, she has not made that Birth cert available for independent inspection. This should be fairly obvious even to a person trapped in lies such as yourself.
Oh and the Arizona SOS has said that President Obama’s COLB birth certificate will be valid under the new Arizona law. http://www.azcentral.com/video/906109624001
Read it and weep. Or more likely CTRL + V another long line of text nothing to do with the subject and which we have debunked 100 times before. Again.
Sorry MichaelN – No one is buying the lies and nonsense from your bogus sources. Just like you, all lack credibility on the issue. You can pull your nonsense on some heavily screened birther blog, but it just falls flat everywhere else.
Hawaiian Law At Odds With Birth Certificate Claims.
Posted on April 13, 2011 by Jes Beard
“What all of this means is that despite the insistance of Hawaiian officials, and of Obama supporters, that the document the Obama campaign posted on the internet is the only thing that can be provided to the President, Hawaiian law allows him to obtain a “certified copy of any certificate” or birth record the state has for him.”
http://jesbeard.com/?p=33
Beard makes a good point in this post that rather than releasing the long form being against state law, actually NOT releasing it upon request of the person on the birth certificate is against state law. So the staement of Attorney General spokesman Joshua Wisch was the exact opposite of what is the case.
Indeed, the current Hawaii health department policy of releasing only the short form is against state law. That is, it would be if it REALLY were the case that only the short form is released. However, I severely doubt this is actually the case. I mentioned in another post two possible cases where it is likely the longer form would be released. One where the person wanted to do genealogical research on their background where it would be useful to have the mother’s and father addresses to search for other family members.
The second is the more important one, where you possibly have a medical condition arising during childbirth and you need the hospital name and delivery doctors name to retrieve the medical reconds of the delivery. It would be just unbelievable that the health department director by stroke of pen would force someone to initiate a costly court case to retrieve the original birth certificate in that case, when previously it was given out routinely, especially when this is done without the consent of the state legislature since it is done without the passing of new laws.
Bob
Bob and Mikey should scan down Jes Beard’s post to read what he says in the comments:
“The simple explanation is the most logical. That is one of the problems with most of the theories of forgery or claiming that Obama was born in Africa… they simply do not make sense. They are, in the most literal sense of the word incredible. Considering the logistics which would have had to have been involved, it is hard for me to believe that those now claiming Obama is not constitutional qualified because they argue he was born in Kenya would ever for a moment accept such a story if its truth meant Obama DID meet the “natural born citizen” definition.”
“The simple explanation is the most logical. That is one of the problems with most of the theories of forgery or claiming that Obama was born in Africa… they simply do not make sense. They are, in the most literal sense of the word incredible. Considering the logistics which would have had to have been involved, it is hard for me to believe that those now claiming Obama is not constitutional qualified because they argue he was born in Kenya would ever for a moment accept such a story if its truth meant Obama DID meet the “natural born citizen” definition.
” As to telling Hawaii to release what it has, he could tell Hawaii to fly to the moon, but that would not make it happen. My article explained what the law is, and is not. Certainly he can obtain a copy of all of Hawaii’s records, and force the state to provide it to him, and he can then do with it as he wishes, but nothing in the statutes gives him the power to require the state to “release what they have” to the general public.
You believe he has not done so because he is a fraud, even though, as I have pointed out, he has no power to require the state to simply release records to the public… and even though not releasing the records serves his political purposes by allowing folks throwing a fit over it to come across as rabid racists. You, and others, are playing into his hands”
“As to Trump “trumpeting the truth,” he has asked some questions, though largely the wrong ones, and has made a number of statements which are clearly and flatly wrong, but, what the hey.”
State vital records agencies exist to serve the public, and in my experience (which is wider than most) those agencies do what they can, within the law, to meet their needs. However much they would wish to help someone with a legitimate need, their first responsibility is to the statues under which they operate.
This thread is being closed because it has gotten too long, and the page generation times have become large.