Just when you thought it was safe to get out of bed, yet another fake birth certificate pops up. I don’t know how old this puppy is, but I just found it.
Click to enlarge
This is what I would call a “birther fantasy” certificate. It encapsulates the mythology of Barack Obama born in Africa, and registered by the statement of his grandmother. This is the kind of certificate that was claimed to be possible in some of the birther lawsuits, such as Keyes v Bowen and by birther attorneys like Paul Jensen.
There are a number of obvious problems with the certificate, the most notable of which is the citation of HRS 338 17.8 at the bottom, a law that wasn’t passed until 21 years later. Also the certificate number is missing. The Roman numeral II is next to the first name and not next to the last name where it should be. The Roman numeral II is out of line with the rest of the text. The registration dates of real certificates are rubber stamped, not typed. Obviously the check boxes for Parent and MD have been “whited out” from the original certificate. The race of the father is wrong. Various lines on the form are missing where they have been erased, for example under the Race of Mother. The letters “pm” are the same size, but on real forms the “m” is pre-printed and much smaller. There is an attendant signature, which there wouldn’t be with an out of state birth. But the main thing is that Hawaii didn’t register out of state births in 1961.
Not to mention there are some really wierd lines on it.
For instance: take a look at a line over “Full Maiden Name of Mother”. The line above abruptly starts. And you can see the box that they used to do that. If it was typed, it would not have that box.
furthermore, Barack is on a different line than the II is. That is really wierd as well.
Then they want us to believe that they’d allow:
“City of Birth: Honolulu. Island of Birth: Oahu”
But then “Hospital of Birth: Unknown, Kenya, Africa”
So, he was born in an Hospital in Kenya, but was born in Honolulu, and Oahu, and the registrar was stupid enough to actually accept this?
Then under “County & State or Foreign Country” they put “U.S.A.” Last I checked, U.S.A. was not a foreign country, and I’ve never heard of a County in Hawaii named “U.S.A.” or a State named “U.S.A.”
It puts Witchitah, Kansas for the birth place of the Mother, but Kenya, Africa as the father’s. Africa is not a country, and Kenya is not a city.
There are tons of other problems with this birth certificate that would be so glaring, that the person typing this would be going “WTF?”
But I’m sure that someone named “WhoDat?” will find a way to implausibly explain all of them away so that he can accept every one of this as truth.
Here is another BC I have seen floating around the internet for sometime:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/Obama%20Kenyan%20Birth%20Certificate/stevesharp2918/281blzk.jpg
I have to agree with the following statement made by Phil Berg:
“If Obama had a Real Birth Certificate We Have Seen it By Now” – Phil Berg
WE HAVN’T!
There’s more to that being fake : the forger couldn’t spell Kalanianaole correct (the i is actually and “l” on that certificate
That BC btw, has been around for a while. I think I argued about it on another forum.
Also the Attendant signature and Stanley’s forged signature are made by the same person. The dates are also signed by the same person (“M’ “e” “n” “a” are all written the same)
Actually, you have…
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Quotes from the State of Hawaii.
“It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate.” — Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Department of Health.
“It’s the only one that we give out.” — Janice Okubo (so, if you deny that this is a valid Hawaii state birth certificate, then you’re saying that anybody under the age of 9 in Hawaii cannot prove their place of birth)
“…Obama was born in Hawaii.” — Dr. Cherome Fukino, Director, Department of Health
Personally, I’ll take the word of the State of Hawaii over the delusions of you any day.
Logic and common sense say that if Obama had not been able to produce a real birth certificate, he would not be president today.
Of course you have.
You refuse to believe in it, that’s different.
That might be attributed to healthy skepticism.
But then, despite overwhelming evidence and official verification, you still refuse to believe in it.
That now lies within the realms of psychiatry.
The fake BC’s are like fake celebrity porn–they help fulfill fantasies that can never be realized.
Clinging to fake Kenyan birth certificates and apocryphal tales of secret Kenyan trips fills a specific need for the birthers: It enables them to pretend that the scary black man in the White House isn’t really our president, or that he won’t be for long. They need to imagine that Barack Obama’s entire presidency can be negated, and everything that’s been done can be undone
It’s a childish fantasy, the dream of “make it never was.” Most of us at some time have moments of dreaming or wishing that something could be undone. But healthy adults realize that we can’t turn back time and that we have to deal with the world as it is. Whether it’s the Holocaust, 9/11, or the Gulf oil spill, these events happened, and as soothing as it might be to imagine a world in which these things never happened, we have to resist the temptation to live in a fantasy world, because that way lies delusion and madness. Oh, and Birtherism.
I’m disappointed in Dr. C. for propagating this obvious fake. That said, your post is truly naive.
I have no problem with the lines – that is possible from continued photocopying of photocopies – happens all the time.
The II being out of line with Barack is NOT weird. Do you not understand it was done on a standard typewriter? That would have been the only instrument available at the time. If the typist forgot to add it when she originally typed it, or if the parents decided to add it later, it was total hell getting things lined back up correctly when you needed to amend an originally typed page.
My name was spelled wrong on my daughters BC, the typist attempted to correct it, and therefore the second misspelling of my name is typed on what appears to be a different line, with obvious whiteout having been applied. My name is STILL spelled wrong on her BC. You wouldn’t think that would be acceptable for a legal document, but it was even as recent as 1987. Of course, anytime I speak of BC’s, I’m called a liar on this website. Why, I’m not sure as I don’t believe I have ever given any reason for people to think I’m lying other than the truth doesn’t align with their OPINIONS.
@Hawaiianborn –
I’m pretty sure you did debunk this one as well. It’s ridiculous, the lengths to which birthers will go to try to explain away the fact that the American people voted a black man into office.
You sir are also truly naive. Why would anyone in their right mind take the word of a federal employee? Have you never asked two federal employees the same question and gotten different answers from them both? I have, and they were both standing right next to each other, both being of the same administrative level.
I’m not saying Okubo wasn’t correct in what she said – I’m saying I wouldn’t take her word for it….period.
And you need to use common sense when assessing someone’s statement. “It’s the only one that we give out.” Under what circumstances could that statement be true and under what different circumstances could the statment be half true? Read the statement for what it says – not for what you WANT it to say.
If you go in off the street and request your BC – ‘the only one that they give out’ is the COLB (like the one Obama posted). If you go in and verbally request the long-form, they will give you a certified copy of that one too, since you need a long-form to apply for a Passport – at least in my case I did. Perhaps if your last name is Obama then the COLB is good enough. 🙂
So while her statement was true – she certainly gave no parameters, nor did she qualify it. It’s true while being only a half-truth. Use your noggen for something besides a hatrack (my mom used to always tell me that – LOL)
And why should we pay any attention to someone who doesn’t know the difference between a federal and state employee?
And some of us would, when there isn’t any evidence to the contrary, will take the words of a state government official, over the paranoid fears of the tin foil hat wearing population.
And have you told us yet what state that is? We are still waiting. You have been shown time and time again you are wrong that you need a long-form Hawiian certificate to apply for a passport. Irrepective of what your name is, the Hawiian COLB is good enough for a passport, and prima facie evidence of birth. You have provided no evidence that there is any state where the COLB looks “just like Obama” and is rejected, or that you can request and get a “long form” from Hawaii. Who sould we believe, someone is repeatedly making demonstratively incorrect statements, without providing any evidence for those statements, or a government official of the State of Hawaii, whose statements have not been proven to be incorrect in any way?
Perhaps if you gave us some evidence that her statements were “only a half-truth” or backed up your unsupported statements, you know, with a fact of where this mystery state that makes COLBs just like the Presidents, but is not sufficient for a passport, or a Hawaiian longform that has been handed out in the past couple of years, we might give what you say a shred of consideration…but to swallow your wholly unsupported statements, when they contradict known facts whould be using our noggens for nothing more than a hatrack.
Why would anyone in their right mind take the word of someone who doesn’t realize we’re talking about state employees?
You have made this assertion about your passport before, and we’re still waiting to see a shred of evidence to support it.
And while it is plausible that some states will give you a certified copy of the form that’s filled out when a baby is born (where did this get the name “long form”?) that doesn’t mean Hawaii will. Does Hawaii?
And as always your name reminds me of the GOP Senator who is rapidly becoming my favorite. And now Djou is voting with the Democrats too. I’m starting to like the Tea Party — their Congressmen support the President’s initiatives more than the Democrats do.
This image has floated around for at least seven and a half months. You can see where it was uploaded to TheObamaFile on October 20, 2009 here: http://theobamafile.com/_images/ .
Beyond the already-cited problems with the document, I’ve always found hilarious the document’s attempts to reconcile the Birther theories with the COLB information. Most notably, it clearly states that the place of birth is “Honolulu” and the island of birth is “Oahu,” as on the COLB, but then it adds a footnote with the completely contradictory information “Birthplace: Kenya.”
So apparently, the document’s thesis is that Madelyn Dunham went into the Hawaiian DOH offices, openly *admitted* that her grandson was born in Kenya, and they still gave him a birth certificate that said he was born on Oahu.
Scott you should change your moniker to Fox Mulder again these conspiracy theories are really out there. I think its time you move out to the woods as you can’t believe anything any person of authority says. I guess any kind of identification you have must be fake then since an official gave it to you.
“I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.”— Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Department of Health.
You don’t have that. You have the word of a HI official. You won’t have the word of the State until you see the original documentation.
If the HI official has access to the original documentation, then we do, by extension, have the word of the State.
Unless you’re accusing Okubo of lying. Are you?
Most people think the “original documentation” is also signed off by one of those unreliable officials. But in fact it is transmuted by a secret patented magical process into “the word of the State,” and in the process purged of all error and imbued with pure truth.
Also, documentation we haven’t seen can be imagined to say what we want, unlike the documentation we have seen, which didn’t, and is therefore wrong.
I don’t believe a word of this. You have to stop making up compost.
Of course Scott would not have a problem with the lines. We all know that she dislikes the President so anything that would discredit him is OK with her. This BC is so pathetic that I can’t imagine anyone with a brain believing that it is close to being real. There are so may inconsistencies, from the wrong fonts on the same line to the incorrect information that it can’t even be defended. However I like how Scott starts out by saying it is a fake but then starts to try and explain away the problems to make it seem that it could possibly be legit. Amazing.
And then we have Scott asking why people think that she doesn’t tell the truth. Scott must have a short memory or think we all have dementia. I would suggest she go back to her comments in I believe it was April where she made the claim that she had a COLB just like Obama’s but she could not get a US Passport. And on top of that she implied she attempted to get a Passport out of the New Orleans office. When it was pointed out to her that a LA COLB was not similar to Obama’s, she made the claim that she never claimed she was from LA. And when asked what state she was born in, she never answered. Still to this day no answer. So it is very disingenous for her to know play dumb and wonder why people on this site consider her a person that tells untruths. But that is usual birther MO. Pretend theories were never debunked and recycle the same crap and hope that people don’t remember.
So, yguy…
1. Good thing that people from Factcheck.org held it, photographed it, and attested to it that it was authentic. Or did you expect Barack Obama (and every presidential candinate) to spend a billion dollars to send every voter in America a certified copy of his birth certificate.
2. Yes, I have the word of the State of Hawaii through official statements from people conducting their official jobs. I also have a “valid Hawaii state birth certificate” that says that Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. This birth certificate is what matters. It meets every qualification that I can find to prove your birthplace to the Federal Government.
So, now that Obama has the document to prove his birthplace to the Federal Government, and has shown it nearly 2 years ago, you’ll of course admit that he was born in the United States, and will drop this argument, right?
By the way, Scott Brown. I got a passport through the Federal Government with a birth certificate that has no more information than Barack Obama’s birth certificate does. I directly dispute your assertation. And until you can provide proof of this (such as the state that you were born in, and documentation of the actual rejection from the Department of State), then we’ll look at what you’re talking about. Otherwise, I’ll have to go with my own experiences.
I would be curious to know which jurisdictions in the US now issue short form certificates that do not meet the State Department’s standards for passport purposes. I can tell you that my New York short form certificate is rather similar to Hawaii’s COLB and was quite sufficient for obtaining a US passport. (In fact, Obama’s COLB is slightly more specific than my short form certificate because mine specifies the date of my birth without indicating when during the day I was born. Mine also omits details of my parents’ ethnic backgrounds.)
I don’t know who issued your short form certificate, but my understanding is that Hawaii made sure that its COLBs would meet State Department standards when it adopted the current format.
As your statement that you can get a long-form on request: It depends on the procedures in use in the relevant jurisdiction. Hawaii is free to decide not to issue certified copies of the original certificate any longer if it so decides; a state official has said that Hawaii has made such a decision. If you have evidence that this is not the policy or practice in Hawaii right now, then please do share.
Actually, there are some places in the US today where the hospitals enter the birth details directly into the birth registration database for the city, county, or state. Where the birth data reaches the registrar electronically rather than in paper form, a traditional certified copy of a long form certificate cannot exist because there is no long form original to copy. I believe that this is the case in New York City for those born today in hospitals that use the Electronic Vital Events Registration System. It appears to be the case as well for those born in Illinois from March 2010, according to this report.
Or its legal equivalent. And this person does in fact represent the State of Hawaii when it comes to certifying Birth Certificates.
“Naive” is such a “not nice” word, not that you have to be nice to me, but it makes the conversation a lot smoother.
I read your comments, but I don’t agree with the criticisms. I suspect we’re both old enough to have used manual typewriters some, and indeed I found difficult to line things up vertically when making corrections. However, for an office worker, who types forms like that for a living, accurate alignment of corrections is second nature. I’ve managed office workers, and know this first hand.
I took a sample birth certificate from Hawaii, which itself is at least a first generation photocopy and printed it out (2nd generation), then photocopied it, and photocopied the photocopy, etc. to the 7th generation. None of the horizontal or vertical lines dropped out. So I have a problem with the lines being missing, and my objection is well-founded and proved by experimental results.
So your charge of my being “naive” is not only rude, it is also wrong.
If I didn’t “propagate” things like this, I couldn’t cover Mario, Orly, Andy, Terry, Paul, Ed, Leo, Phil, Gary, Lucas, Charles or Alan. I’d have to delete half the comments here. They’re all fakes in one way or another.
Another point about this “BC” just struck me. Would the elder Obama, in 1961 have been known as Barack Obama, Sr. as is listed here? He would only have been a “Sr” when there was a chance of confusion with a “Jr”. I doubt that contemporaneous documents would have listed him as such.
It’s amusing. By the way, “Barack”, “Hussein”, “Obama”, and “II”, none of them line up with eachother, ScottBrown. So, you want us to believe that those happened at 4 different times.
Here are the problems that I see on them all.
1. Area 1a, b, c (Name): None of the entries (“Barack”, “II”, “Hussein”, “Obama”) line up with eachother on the same line. Are we to believe that they put in Barack at one point, Hussein at another, Obama at a third, and II at a fourth?
2. Every Checkbox has 2 Xs on it.
3. Area 5a: Neither Aug. 4 and 1961 seem to line up with eachother.
4. Area 5b: The 7:24 PM doesn’t line up with the date.
5. Area 6a: There is an inexpliciable “i” in the middle of the field.
6. Area 6a, b, c: It says, “City of Birth: Honolulu, Island of Birth: Oahu, Hosiptal of Birth: Unknown – Kenya, Africa” – They want us to believe that the person accepting that would believe that someone would be possible to be born in Honolulu, Hawaii on the first two, but it explicitly marked “Kenya, Africa” on the third. You don’t think that the person accepting this document would go “WTF?” Or how about the person typing this document? Are they part of the 50-year long conspiracy to get Barack Obama into the White House.
7. Area 23: “338-17.8” doesn’t line up, neither does “Per Grandmother”
8. Area 23: See #6.
9. There is no file number.
10. Area 22: “Date accepted by ???? General” blank.
These are just problems I see with lineups that shouldn’t be there.
Furthermore, 338-17.8 didn’t actually become a law until 1982 (20 years after the birth)
Good article on WND and how the birthers tend to operate….
Farah Moves the Birther Goalposts
Topic: WorldNetDaily
We’ve previously detailed how WorldNetDaily’s Joseph Farah has been trying to change the focus of the birther movement from questioning Barack Obama’s citizenship to questioning his eligibility to be president by mining the “natural born citizen” argument. Farah moved the birther goalposts even more in his May 26 WND column:
Let’s see the birth certificate – as a starting point.
Let’s hear from Obama on how, as the son of a foreigner from Kenya, his birth anywhere – in the United States or elsewhere – he could possibly qualify for the presidency as a “natural born citizen,” as the term has always been defined.
Not only did Farah fulfill our prediction that he would not be satisfied if Obama released the original birth certificate Farah has been screaming for for months, Farah is also messing with the facts because “natural born citizen” has never had an authoratative legal definition in the U.S. and, thus, cannot be interpreted as a term that has “always been defined.”
As Farah’s own employee, Drew Zahn, reported in August 2009:
Indeed, a consensus on the correct definition of “natural born citizen” has eluded lawyers and scholars for more than 200 years. The Constitution’s failure to offer any definition of the phrase whatsoever, the absence of definitive Supreme Court rulings and a wide array of opinions through the centuries have only further confused the question of what “natural born” actually means.
Farah cannot demand an interpretation of “natural born citizen” as it “has always been defined” because such a thing does not exist, which he would know if he had read his own website.
Also, nowhere in his column does he tell us how “natural born citizen” has “always been defined” — which tells us that Farah is either very stupid or very dishonest. Or perhaps both.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/
Also of note:
It’s odd that Madelyn Payne Dunham would misspell her own first name.
They could do that, but most hospitals in Illinois use a system called PeriData to enter birth information, and information from that system will be transferred into the birth registry once an interface is implemented later this year, rather than direct entry into the new EBRS.
For over two decades hospital birth data has been entered into an MS-DOS based system from Genesis Systems, and that was transmitted to various state systems. Other EBC systems are provided by NetSmart, Gold Systems and ManTech.
I have mine in front of me. Two copies in fact, one that was signed one week after I was born and one which I ordered in 1988 because a new employer required it. Both contain the same information:
Name
Date of Birth
City and State of Birth (but not the name of the hospital)
Father’s Name
Mother’s Maiden Name
Date Filed
Signature of Local Registrar
The 1988 copy also includes an issue date (June 2, 1988) and a Local Registration No. (173). The 1988 copy also has a raised seal, while the older one does not.
The 1988 copy was sufficient for me to obtain a U.S. passport.
By the way, both copies say “Date Filed,” so according to the birthers my birth certificate apparently has never been “accepted.”
The Birther obsession with that terminology has always struck me as a difference without a distinction. Firstly there’s the simple fact that other contemporaneous COLBs also say “Date Filed,” so the language is hardly evidence of wrongdoing.
But moreover, if the word choice was reversed, and Obama’s COLB had said “Date Accepted” whereas older COLBs had said “Date Filed,” Birthers would undoubtedly have objected and argued that this was evidence that Obama’s documentation was initially accepted but never filed, and that the lack of a “Date Filed” is evidence of wrongdoing. So either way, with either word, the Birthers conclude something’s wrong.
Scott Brown’s (or whoever she is) story about the passport is a joke. There is a federal law that sets out uniform standards for “birth certificates” (see P.L. 104-208, Div. C, “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996,” title VI, § 656, 110 Stat. 3009-716 (1996), and then amended by P.L. 108-458, “Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004,” title VIII, § 7211(a), 118 Stat. 3825 (2004)). It is now codified as a note to 5 U.S.C. sec. 301 (look it up on-line), and it states that a “birth certificate” is a certificate of birth for a citizen or national of the United States whose birth is registered in this country and is issued by a “State or local government agency or authorized custodian of record and produced from birth records maintained by such agency or custodian of record.” The short-form certificate, or a COLB, issued from records “maintained” by the state is, therefore, under federal law a “birth certificate” for all legal purposes. A birth certificate is NOT the actual records on file, but is a computer or other generated copy “produced from birth records maintained” by the State.” Get it ?
So while some official may have decided not to provide such documents, HI law says they have to all the same, to qualified applicants.
Is the author a liar, or just an imbecile?
Farah is both…A proven liar and definately an imbecile…You nailed it on the head. No one truly believes anything that WND ever writes…It is pure fiction…
No, we have a claim by a state official about the written testimony of state officials made decades earlier.
I’m not aware that she ever made any claims about Obama’s original BC; but if you care to substitute Fukino for Okubo in your question, the answer is no – though I am certainly open to the possibility that she could be, as is anyone who views this objectively.
I didn’t ask about Farah, I asked about the author of the preposterous claim you quoted.
Given your knowledge of birth registration and record keeping, a thorough blog posting just on the movement toward paperless birth record systems would be definitely worth reading.
Please accept a correction to an unfortunate typo: I meant to type my comment so as to refer to your knowledge of birth registration.
which part(s) do you find preposterous ?
Subsection (a) indicates that the Department of Health may issue either a certified copy of the certificate itself or furnish the contents of the certificate (meaning certify the facts).
You have already quoted subsection (c), which states: “Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.”
The requirements are satisfied if the information is a printout that certifies the birth facts held in the records of the Department of Health. Hence, the issuance of the COLB discharges the duties of the Department of Health.
Not if the registrant applies for a certified copy of the original BC, it doesn’t, because there is info on the original that isn’t on a COLB, and a qualified applicant is entitled to ANY portion of ANY certificate.
I quoted it verbatim. Are you under the impression that Obama has released “the original birth certificate Farah has been screaming for for months”?
Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that HI procedures would allow Obama to request a document with more information on it than is present on his COLB. He may have even already made that request for whatever reason he might have. However, for the purposes of his eligibility all the information he or anyone else needs is contained on the published COLB.The HI DOH has signed & sealed this document & has provided verification that it is valid. Until there is a real legal requirement for more information than what is on the COLB that is all you are going to get.
No, you misunderstand the situation. The matter was *settled* decades ago. As a matter of Hawaiian state record, Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. State records enjoy full faith and credit under article Article IV Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
Where “views this objectively” means “embraces conspiracy thinking”.
I went looking for some research material, and ended up finding a report that already covers the question, Assessing Changes in the Vital Records Infrastructure. The percentage of birth records transmitted electronically as of 2005 was 94%.
That document is in Microsoft Word format. You can download a free Word viewer from Microsoft.
Hardly.
Presumably so, but the circumstances of Obama’s birth were attested to by the written testimony of contemporaneous witnesses, which testimony we do not have access to; so we don’t know how the matter was settled. We just know what someone has reported about that testimony.
Your point being…?
So objectivity requires that we utterly disregard the possibility of a government official lying. Have I got that right?
But you are not and the COLB is sufficient. So why force the applicant to go through a process for which there exists no justification other than your curiosity? Especially since the relevant document which the DOH does supply was readily made available?
Did not Okubo sign and seal the BC that Obama has made available? Is that not Okubo making a claim about “Obama’s original BC” that is now stored in the Hawai’ian archives as per State law?
Those comments being specifically that the copy is a faithful and correct copy of information that is included on “Obama’s original BC” and that therefore that copy, being signed and sealed by the duly authorized officer of the State of Hawai’i, is sufficient for all legal purposes in the various United States as provided for in the Constitution of the United States Article IV Section I (the full faith and credit clause).
Are you under the impression that the birth certificate need be released to fulfill the prediction that Farah will not be satisfied with it?
What if Farah had said, explicitly, “I don’t need to see it, because I won’t be satisfied with the birth certificate when and if it is released?”
That seems to be Farah’s exact position.
OK, it’s obvious they are doing cut and paste from a document using Courier New font. The letters are a pretty good match, but the digits are way off. And they didn’t even try on theparts that should be date-stamped, just using the fake type.
But my question is “WHY?” Try to imagine you’re a birther, so hard up you want to fake a BC. You’re trying to bring down the President of the US aren’t you? Can’t you stir your useless self enough to go find an actual type-writer? Make a fake form, print it out, run it through the typewriter, doll it up however you want and scan it in again! I mean, St. Michael on a pogo stick, you’re living your mother’s basement aren’t you? Just go rummage in the corner, I’m sure there’s a typewriter there somewhere! Maybe it needs a ribbon, but you can get one on eBay can’t you? And why not at the very least get yourself a rubber date stamp? They sell them at Office Depot for crying out loud! Jesus weeps.
I believe it’s Onaka you’re thinking of, but in any case the implicit claim that the posted image is of a COLB that complies with HI law is unsubstantiated.
Again, what does this have to do with the authenticity of the COLB as an objective reality?
I suggest you take a look at HRS 338-14.3 (although this may have been effected by the recent law to limit frivolous requests).
Actually, it was Alvin T. Onaka, who is the State Registrar who signed and certified the copy.
1. Everyone’s seen the image.
2. Real people went saw that there’s a paper copy of the image; they are the same, it was reported.
3. The image of the COLB looks like the other people’s COLBs.
4. The signature and seal are visible on the image.
5. The index data not only states Obama was born in Hawaii, but the index data is identical to the COLB’s data.
6. There’s no evidence to the contrary.
One note about Paul Jensen: he is a bottom of the food chain lawyer, like the Three Stooges.
His practice specializes in dog bites. His client is going to be bitten on the ashford.
Some Democrats turned into birthers?
http://blogs.starbulletin.com/inpolitics/
Along with all of the other inconsistencies pointed out earlier:
Why would the GRANDMOTHER file for a birth certificate, instead of the parents?? Why wouldn’t a GRANDMOTHER who is attesting to the birth of her dear grandchild in the land she knows well, be UNABLE to say where he was born??
I don’t recall my Hawaii birth certificate listing an ISLAND. It lists the CITY of Honolulu and COUNTY of Oahu.
And the answer of course is that she wouldn’t. Following is the law in force in 1961:
Conspiracy theorists think, when necessary to further their theories, that laws are ignored. To borrow a phrase: birthers strain at a gnat but swallow a camel.
Isn’t forging official documents some kind of felony in your country?
Why aren’t the forgers found and prosecuted?
and by US law, that rest of that information is not needed. As many have stated, to get a Passport, one only needs to make sure their COLB has the minimum required to get one. Seems that states, including NY , which has LESS information than Hawaii’s COLB, meets that criteria
The only information needed on a COLB /Birth Certificate are these:
Full name of child
Place of birth
Time of Birth
Parental names
Date accepted or filed with the Department of Health of that state.
RAised or embossed seal of the Department of Health of that state
Stamped of hand signature of the director of the Department of Health of that state.
The rest of the information is extraneous and not needed and do NOT pertain to citizenship status.
Tell me how a doctor who my mother saw only for 8 months of her life has ANYTHING to do with determining citizenship?
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t believe forging by itself is illegal. It has more to do with what you do with the forgery.
I have used a COLB to obtain a passport, a commission in the U. S. Navy, a top secret security clearance, and to register my marriage to a foreign national in her home country.
Yes, see:
and:
The forgery or alteration of a vital record is itself a crime:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0043.htm
Except my parodies. Parody is protected by the 1st Amendment, as I reminded Mario.
I stand corrected.
This statement is meaningless without context…
…and the President’s ability to get a passport is of no interest.
The information isn’t the point. It is the provenance of said information that is of concern to those of us who care about the truth.
He is an eyewitness to the event, as was the doctor who presumably delivered Obama. Current DoH officials are only eyewitnesses to that doctor’s written testimony.
Please inform us the process by which you plan to interrogate the good doctor’s coffin (or urn). I’m sure that there are lots of other people who could make good use of this. To make it simpler why don’t you just hold a seance?
The provenance of the information, whether from a doctor or from grandma, doesn’t change the fact that it is the only evidence of a birth and it says he was born in Hawaii!
Whether it’s a doctor or Grandma, you’re in the same boat, you have to disprove the Hawaiian birth.
do you honestly believe that a doctor is going to remember any details from a birth nearly 50 years ago ?
Yguy keeps proving that he doesn’t let facts get in the way of his firmly held beliefs.
Yguy doesn’t just take the path less travelled, he takes the path no one else can see, and won’t believe that the others paths exist.
What yguy is essentially saying is that for everyone who doesn’t have a living witness to their birth the records held by a state attesting to their birth cannot be believed because the state officials might be corrupt. The lawyers on this blog might wish to chime in, but I am under the impression that eyewitness accounts to events are at least as corruptible as anything which a state official might present. Probably more so since there needs to be actual impeaching evidence of an official document, not someone’s wet dream.
You have legally sufficient evidence to establish birth in Hawaii. You have provided no evidence to rebut this evidence. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that you don’t care about the truth, and then complain that the names of your demanded “eyewitnesses” are now dead, and therefore, still nothing can be established, and will whine some more, so why should anyone humour you with more documentation that you are not entitled to have in the first place?
If by “it” you mean the COLB, you know perfectly well that isn’t true…
…and if you mean the original, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, because you’ve never seen it.
How about you provide some reason why the COLB and the “long form” would be different? Or why all the nice folks with DOH in Hawaii would say Obama was born in Hawaii if he wasn’t?
First of all, what difference does it make what he remembers if he testified to it at the time in writing, which testimony is presumably on the original BC if Obama was born at Kapoliani Hospital? Second of all, what the hell do you think anyone in DoH remembers about it?
The lawyers on this blog might wish to chime in, but I am under the impression that eyewitness accounts to events are at least as corruptible as anything which a state official might present.
Moreover, fifty-year-old eyewitness accounts? Of a routine and forgettable event? Only a person with no consistent evidentiary standards could consider that to be more persuasive than state documentation plus state verification plus contemporary publication.
In Yguy’s world, the vaulted BC has a big stamp on it “Really born in Kenya, but tell everyone he was born in Hawaii” and the Hawaiian state officials who looked at it, lied in their official capacity about him being born in Hawaii.
You can’t see a black hole, but you can tell it’s there by its effects. Similarly the original:
The online version of the COLB says three things:
1. he was born on Aug. 4, 1961 i
2. in Honolulu
3. to Barack and Stanley Ann.
The newspaper announcements show that he was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, to Barack and Stanley Ann.
The government of Hawaii has confirmed he was born in Honolulu.
We know almost to a moral certainty that the original will say:
1. He was born on Aug. 4, 1961
2. In Honolulu
3. To Barack and Stanley Ann
[quote]If by “it” you mean the COLB, you know perfectly well that isn’t true…[/quote]
By it, I meant the records of the State of Hawaii.
By evidence I meant real, admissible evidence.
You still have to [b]prove[/b] that he was born elsewhere, whether his doctor or his mother or you signed the birth certificate!
And you know perfectly well that this is true!
Its just as big a joke as her supposed friends being worried that their sons being born in Germany on a US Military base would automatically become Germans.
So essentially, eyewitness testimony has less probative value than the testimony of people who were contemporaneously oblivious to the event in question, as long as the latter happen to be government officials. Have I got that about right?
I too have gotten my passport with a COLB printout as recent as 2006. I remember the first birth certificate I got from my parents it was old on carbon paper and had quite a bit of information. I lost it during college. I then had to get another one in 2003 which looked different. The last time I got one was when I applied for my passport and got a COLB similiar to the president’s. I had no problem getting a passport. I’ve gotten every ID I’ve ever needed with a COLB. Fake Scott Brown is telling stories again.
Probably, everyone who was there is either dead or has their memory fading. Can you remember what happened on a particular day, even 30 years ago?
I was not aware that human egg & sperm had sense organs.
It says he was born in Oahu, Honolulu.
Assuming that any of the eyewitness are even alive, and besides the fact that no eyewitness testimony is even necessary, eyewitness testimony of an event like a retired ObGyn, in his late 80s or early 90s, delivering one child out of probably a 1000 during a career, 50 years ago, would be far less probative than the COLB, or a goverment official testify as to a government document. An old man, in his 80s or 90s, testifying to an event 50 years ago is easily impeached.
Do you have your “long form bc” with a doctor’s signature? Does it say that the doctor swears that the information on the bc is 100% accurate? Does it have a doctor’s “raised or embossed seal”? If not, why would you believe a doctor over a state official who has done this?
Black holes don’t need fallible human intermediaries to produce their effects. The original BC does.
Which means we don’t know at all.
But you don’t know what they say, because you haven’t seen them all.
A certified copy of the original isn’t real, admissible evidence?
Because…?
Very, very simple. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Why do you fail to comprehend this simple principle of American jurisprudence?
I have a passport that says I was born in the United States. None one in the state department interviewed the doctor who delivered me. Rather, it relied upon the fact that I have birth certificate that says I was born in the United States. No one in my state’s department of vital statistics interviewed the doctor who delivered me. Rather, it relied upon the documentation completed at the time of my birth that was submitted by the doctor who delivered me.
And if you interviewed the doctor who delivered me, he wouldn’t remember that he delivered me.
Now if I was the subject of an eligibility lawsuit, the court would be perfectly content, under the governing rules of evidence, to rely upon the chain of events described in the first paragraph to conclude I was born in the United States.
That people like yguy would reject the applicable rules of evidence, and instead require proof as described in the second paragraph, would lead to erroneous factual conclusion.
But, really, that people like yguy demands more proof than required the government is his problem, not Obama’s.
Sorry, no response is acceptable that does not begin with a straight yes or no. Here is the question again:
Sorry, Charlie. You don’t get to make the rules.
This is a question of epistomology. Since I cannot even be sure that you exist, I can know nothing to a moral certainty except cogito ergo sum
But, black holes and birth certificates have effects. Effects we can predict.
If the original birth certificate said that Obama was born in Kenya, then the newspaper announcements would not say that he was born in Honolulu.
There is nothing it could say that could contradict the fact that he was born in Hawaii!
It is, and it would say that he was born in Hawaii! City of Honolulu, Island of Oahu, County of Honolulu.
The COLB couldn’t say he was born in Honolulu, it couldn’t be stamped a “true and accurate copy or abstract,” the newspapers wouldn’t have said he was born in Honolulu, and the State of Hawaii wouldn’t have confirmed that he was born in Honolulu if the long form said something different!
Because we know from external evidence that the long form will say that he was born in Honolulu.
You can spin out fantasies about Grandma committing a fraud, but even if Grandma was the one signing the BC, you’d still have to prove that fact!
1) We already have prima facie evidence that he was born in Hawaii. This has never been rebutted with admissable evidence. Therefore, left unchallenged, it is suffient evidence to prove he was born in Hawaii.
2) As has been said time and time again, you are the plaintiff challenging him. It is your job to prove your case.
I’ll even play by your silly rules. Eyewitness testimony is highly unreliable. Even eyewitness testimony of a recent event. Eyewitness testiony from an old man (assuming he is alive, which is probably not the case) of a routine event 50 years ago…pretty much worthless.
Going to court, I would take the COLB 10 out of 10 times.
Are you claiming that a doctor would testify that he did not remember delivering Obama, or that the long form was signed by a doctor witnessing the birth in Kenya?
If the former, then, yes. You’re actually talking about eyewitness negative testimony. Asking a person what they don’t remember from 50 years ago? Clearly less reliable than a birth certificate signed at the time.
If the latter, it’s not eyewitness testimony, since you don’t have the declarant in the witness box. It’s hearsay, admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. It gains its reliability because it’s a government document, and because it’s an ancient document.
Or are you suggesting that the birth certificate will say Kenya, but some later, illegal, amendment changed the place of birth so that it and the COLB it generates, say Hawaii?
Actually, what are you arguing?
Scary question, huh? 🙂
“Actually, what are you arguing?”
That Obama shouldn’t be President regardless of the evidence.
JoZeppy provided a cogent answer to your “question”.
Good Article by ConWebwATCH on WND…
WND Brings The Old-School Birtherism
Topic: WorldNetDaily
For all of WorldNetDaily’s recent revisionism attempting to shift the birther debate from “citizenship” to “eligibility,” it hasn’t lost its taste for the old-school, Obama-hating birther rant. Which brings us to a June 1 WND column by David Solway:
For it is not merely Obama’s putative illegitimacy but the fact of Obama himself with all the harm he is doing both domestically and internationally that may conceivably lead to major dislocations, far worse than the disasters of Jimmy Carter’s administration or the blowback naiveté of Woodrow Wilson’s. Indeed, what we see developing is a cataclysm from which America may not be able to recover. That is why the legitimacy question needs to be pursued until it is settled one way or another. The stirring finale of Ezra Pound’s celebrated Pisan Canto LXXXI serves as a cautionary tale: “Here error is all in the not done,/all in the diffidence that faltered.” What is not helpful to the nation as a whole is precisely Obama’s continued occupancy of the White House. This is the reason so burning an issue should not be suffered to just gutter out. For in the electoral framework, it seems the only way to dismiss Obama from office before his destructive term is up is via impeachment, and the only way this can conceivably happen is for the courts to accede to disclosure requests, assuming that Obama does indeed have something to hide.
“And it sure looks like he does. Obama is the only president who has suppressed vital personal information; every other has made full disclosure. When the press raised a fuss about John McCain’s birth particulars – since he was born in the Panama Canal Zone – he immediately released all his actual documents, thousands of pages worth, including those showing that he was a natural-born American citizen, as per the United States Code [8 U.S.C. 1403 (a)]. Obama did not follow suit, and the media let him off the hook. The document released online is not an authentic birth certificate. It is the “short form” affidavit, a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) with standard information left out, such as the actual name of the birth hospital and the name of the attending physician. In “Dreams from My Father,” Obama mentions having found his birth certificate, which, as it turns out, was then conveniently lost in a small house fire. Nor would the two announcements in Honolulu newspapers confirming his birth constitute proof of American citizenship or be accepted as such in a court of law, for obvious reasons.”
Nothing like citing an anti-Semitic fascist sympathizer like Ezra Pound to make your point.
“Let’s look at that second paragraph a little closer. Solway offers no evidence that McCain released “thousands of pages worth” of documents; he did release his birth certificate but never publicly released all of the related documents. WND reported in August 2009: “During his first presidential campaign in 1999, Sen. John McCain released 1,500 pages of medical and psychiatric records collected by the Navy. In 2008, McCain allowed reporters to spend three hours sifting through 1,200 pages of health records.” Allowing reporters to view documents for a limited time is not the same thing as a public release. And WND does not indicate how many of the latter documents were duplicates of those released earlier.”
Solway’s supporting link for his claim that the certificate released by obama “is not an authentic birth certificate” goes to an analysis by an anonymous “expert analyst” boing by the name “Techdude.” As we’ve detailed, “Techdude” has been discredited, and his credentials have been questioned as well.
solway’s claim that Obama’s original birth certificate was “conveniently lost in a small house fire” goes to a story that identifies itself as “satire.” The Obama-haters at the Western Journalism Center seem to have fallen for this as well.
WND’s embrace of such a factually deficient screed undermines whatever credibility it was trying to establish with its “eligibility” revisionism. But don’t expect Joseph Farah and Co. to recognize that — they’re too far down the Obama-hate rabbit hole to notice.
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/blog/
The egoism which apparently blinds you to self-evident truths beyond that of your own existence is not my problem.
A glaring falsehood, since whatever effects the vault copy might display are dependent on the actions of free moral agents.
Non sequitur, for the reason above.
No, we do not. We can draw that conclusion from the evidence if we are content to put our faith in Fukino, but the only way to know what the long form says is to examine it directly.
I certainly don’t have to prove anything I haven’t claimed, and I haven’t claimed any HI official lied about anything.
“A cataclysm from which America may not be able to recover?” What they are saying is that they see the country and the American people as so weak that the slightest gust of wind will knock them over. One bad President and we’re done! Like the country hasn’t survived a Civil War, 2 World Wars, several Depressions and more bad Presidents than you can shake a stick at? Get a grip folks!
yguy-Can you give me a reason why anyone should care what you believe? Even one?
So if Hawaiian officials say Obama’s vital records say he was born in Hawaii, that’s probative, admissible evidence that Obama was born in Hawaii.
And your contradictory evidence is…?
Yeah, we survived eight years of Shrub. That is a major accomplishment. This is my favorite:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html
Dear birthers, yesterday, I went to US Immigration office in Portland, OR, as I walked through the door I saw large portrait of Barack H. Obama, it was labeled “President”. Shortly after that I went to the US Post Office and lo and behold there also was a portrait of Barack H Obama, it also was labeled “President”. Sorry, these portraits were not labeled usurper, they clearly identified Barack H. Obama as our president. So where is your birther stuff going? (same place as Lakin)
Never heard of Descartes?
Regardless of the actions of free moral agents, the vault copy would have effects.
If and only if it says X it will have X’ effects.
If and only if it says Y, it will have Y’ effects.
We see X’ effects, not Y’ effects.
You are arguing that it says X because of Z motives or A actions.
Doesn’t impact that it says X!
Regardless of whether a doctor signed the form or Grandma signed the form, it says X!
Fukino’s statements accord with the rest of the evidence. The newspaper accounts cannot have said that Obama was born in Hawaii if the vault copy says something different (regardless of who signed it, or for what motives!).
We know that the vault form says what the COLB says to a reasonable certainty (enough to satisfy the civil burden of proof) and also beyond all reasonable doubt (enough to satisfy the criminal burden of proof). You want proof beyond unreasonable doubt.
Even if we examined the vault form, it could have been forged. It could have been placed there by aliens. It could have been placed there by time-traveling interlopers from the year 21,012 AD.
If we let in unreasonable doubt, if we have to prove everything to a moral certainty, then nothing will get proven.
Grandma is a Hawaii official?
Do you understand conditional statements?
You can spin out fantasies about Grandma committing a fraud, but even if Grandma was the one signing the BC, you’d still have to prove that fact!
If you think I said that you had said anything about a Hawaiian official lying, you need to work on reading comprehension.
Do you people really not understand that the signature of the attending physician on the original constitutes written testimony to the fact of birth at a certain point in time?
Really?
I don’t know what it will say, and neither do you. That’s the point.
And what do you think the signature on the COLB is? Testimony that the document contains the information on record.
Actually, I do know what it will say. Same thing as the COLB.
But the birth certificate is not testimony. It was not presented in court. It was not subjected to cross-examintion.
The COLB and the birth certificate are hearsay. They are admissible because they fall into certain exceptions to the rule excluding hearsay.
The COLB fits into 2 exceptions, the vault form into 3 or 4. Does the fact that it is an ancient document make it more reliable than the fact that the State has vouched for its veracity?
I can try to figure out in what conditions it would conflict with the COLB. I’m having trouble coming up with credible conditions.
What conditions do you think are possible in which the doctor’s signature on the long form conflicts with the information on the COLB?
About the “cataclysm” article, it’s amusing that they want to mention Carter and Wilson as examples of particularly terrible Presidents. I suspect the difficulty they faced was trying to come up with bad Presidents that are Democrats.
Carter was indeed a lousy President, but mostly in that he was ineffective. You’d think the wingnuts would like that in a Democrat. But he’s been an unusually effective ex-President, and I think that’s what enrages them.
Wilson — be serious. He is not on anybody’s list of bad Presidents, he often turns up on lists of the best.
If you want a bad Democrat, you can’t do better than Buchanan, and to a slightly lesser extent, his predecessor, Pierce. But maybe they found it unsatisfying to have to go back 150 years.
Besides Buchanan and Pierce, the usual list of really bad Presidents is Grant, Andrew Johnson, Harding, and Nixon — all Republicans.
Oh the irony! How easily your own words can be applied to you.
Sorry yguy. You are wrong again. The only difference between the COLB and your “long form” is that the “long form” contains more fields of information on it. All fields displayed on the COLB come from the “long form”.
Therefore, when the COLB lists the parents, the date of birth and the place of birth, this information is exactly the same on both forms.
So, as they only thing relevant to Constitutional eligibility here is place of birth, you can’t get past the born in Honolulu, HI, which is clearly stated on the form.
For that very same reason, as the COLB is the official certified form provided by the state of HI for just those purposes, you can not provide one single reason for why the supposed “long form” would make any difference or be of any value whatsoever to the basic issue at hand.
Well, you certainly haven’t been able to prove *anything* at all, that is for sure.
So, what exactly is your purpose here and what exactly are you “claiming”. You rant a lot, but you don’t seem to say or contribute anything of value. If this is just your way of expressing sour grapes at losing the election, because you realize that you are completely powerless to do anything about it…
…well, too bad. Good luck with your vote in 2012.
But otherwise, don’t you have anything else of value in your life to spend your time on instead of being stuck in an endless hissy-fit for years after an election that doesn’t accomplish anything?
Can anyone (I’m speaking to real lawyers here, not birthers) come up with a valid scenario where the COLB would be sufficiently impugned in a courtroom that it would be necessary to produce the “vault” copy to verify the COLB.? The only one I can think of is something similar to what Puerto Rico recently went through where they “invalidated” a huge number of BCs because there was widespread counterfeiting. However, that is what the section of the HI law is for so that someone can request verification of the COLB data.
No, what makes it more reliable is that it is original and contemporaneous. Even though the vault copy is technically hearsay, the COLB is hearsay evidence OF hearsay evidence, and it should be clear which has the greater probative value.
If you believe W did lie about WMD in Iraq, you shouldn’t have any problem getting your mind around the idea that other government officials can lie. 🙂
Somebody would have to have broken the law.
So either the long-form certificate says Obama was born in Kenya (or perhaps Indonesia, or Canada), and Fukino and Onaka are lying, and no one in the Hawaiian government has exposed them as liars? Seriously?
Or the long-form certificate says Obama was born in Hawaii, but that’s only because someone who is now dead told a lie almost 50 years ago? And there’s no actual evidence of this lie, just speculation? Seriously?
“Somebody.” Do you suppose the somebody who prepared the COLB we’ve all seen pictures of was the same somebody who publicly attested that the information on it was correct? Or were they different somebodies? Two somebodies who were, dare I say it, conspiring?
Dear Yguy,
In every arena of human interaction there is a framework of communicating customs that informally constrains individuals to accept what experience and Law have taught us, are reasonable standards of verification of asserted facts which are critical to the discussion of a particular issue. Beyond human error issues, there are conceivable fraudulent and presumably even undetectable ways in which every individual’s vital records could have been tampered with at the time of it’s creation or anytime since. Without proof of fraud, to assert that your doubt and suspicion for any particular case is compelling, reveals the premise that fairly applying the same doubts to every vital record, would make us absurdly slave to; intellectual anarchy. To cast dismissive doubt on every person, process, motivation, fact and standard of proof which yields an unfavorable conclusion, inflates healthy skepticism into a bizarre sort of individually prescribed cynicism. Society survives when enough people are satisfied by a collective standard of proof for any particular issue – bedlam would result if every individual insisted their own requirements be met before a President can finish his elected term.
Even Birthers have scores of different eligibility and birth circumstance proof thresholds which they individually insist MUST be met! It is a shame that such familiar child-like naivete cannot dispel the racism and political animus that seems to so often accompany it.
I should point out that Hawaii didn’t register out of state births in 1961 so the certificate COULD NOT say Obama was born anywhere but in Hawaii.
What makes either of the documents is that they are part of an administrative state record keeping process. A process that the court give great defference to, thus those documents being self authenticating. You can just as easily raise the entirely unsubstantiated claim that this undefined “somebody” lied to create the form on file as the COLB. Then what is stopping you from saying, “well, now we need to see her hospital records because TechDude II said that one is a forgery too.” That is where the concept of prima facia evidence comes in. It protects people from folks like you, who create mythical concerns, without providing a scantilla of evidence as to why the first document provided is unsufficient and keeping demanding more.
And if you really want to make the President Bush/WMD comparison, how about providing a reason why the Republican administration in Hawaii would lie. It’s pretty clear that those claiming Bush lied about WMDs believe he did so to get the US into a war with Iraq. So why would the Republicans in Hawaii, first off, lie to create a document while Obama is merely running for President, and then compound that lie by saying they examined the orginal documents and all was in order, and that he was indeed born in Hawaii?
Just because you think it is possible that someone, somewhere, may have possibly broken the law to create a false document, to cover for an 18 woman of limited means who, in her third trimester, traveled to Africa, an expensive trip taking multiple days, which involved multiple transfers and holdovers, gave birth, and was back in Washington state in time for the fall sememster, effectively hid every shred of evidence of this trip from the world, doesn’t mean the words “prima facia evidence” suddenly lose their meaning, and your “concerns” deserve to be taken seriously.
We are not talking about EVERY vital record, we are talking about a vital record which has direct bearing on the constitutional eligibility of the President.
I don’t think, I know. So does everyone over age 12.
I’m not interested in your crackpot theories, thanks anyway.
Oh, no! Not the McCain birth certificate myth again!
You need some theory to make it at all plausible that the government would lie.
We continue to accept government documents as self-authenticating because, despite occasional lies, the government generally tells the truth, especially about mundane records like this.
Just because it is possible the government lied doesn’t mean it is probable that they lied.
This sort of free-floating concern about governmental lies (they lied about which beach we were going to land on on D-Day, too!) is an unreasonable doubt that doesn’t reach the veracity of any specific document.
Ah, hah. Finally, an admission by a birther.
Uh, oh! I think just heard yguy having an aneurysm.
Situation A: Grandma submits a long form saying Obama was born in Honolulu because she wants to perpetrate a fraud.
Situation B: Doctor submits a long form saying Obama was born in Honolulu because that’s what happened.
Regardless of the motive, the output into the newspaper is the same. Regardless of the motive, the COLB looks the same.
Or, do you think there’s a motive check in the newspaper?
How would the newspaper announcement be different because of different motives?
How would the COLB be different?
You can use things without understanding them. The fact that you used a conditional statement, yet thought I had definitively said you had done the thing contained in my “if” clause suggests you are using conditional statements without understanding them.
That’s funny, we’re not really interested in yours, either.
You make my point. Your statement implies that being CERTAIN of a President’s eligibility can not be left to customary standards of proof. Instead every possible scheme and circumstance that could IN THEORY have allowed a candidate to qualify for the presidency by ANY interpretation of Article 2 in the Constitution must be investigated and revealed to the extent demanded by any citizen ad infinitum.
Take yourself as an example, YGuy: Compelled by your devotion to the Constitution, you have “serious” questions about whether or not Obama is eligible to the Presidency he has been elected to. By some similarly un-evidenced, but conceivable perspective of imagined conspiracy, blunder, or ignorance, every previous president’s eligibility can arguably be called into question on the basis of their possibly flawed and/or fraudulently generated (or custodially tampered with) vital records.
Why has a friend of the Constitution like you waited for this Presidency to make un-evidenced suspicions the gold standard for challenging a Presidential eligibility?
What is so uncustomary about the idea of original documentation having greater probative value than testimony to the contents thereof?
You have me confused with someone else.
When has a President ever published an abstract of a birth certificate on the pretext of clearing the air WRT his eligibility and then refused to publish the original, which in this case I am constantly assured cannot possibly fail to confirm his claim to being a citizen at birth?
You know, I hadn’t thought of it that way. Now that you mention it, this really is the first time an African-American President who’s initials are BHO issued a copy of this birth certificate, but then declined to release his student loan records, his kindergarten transcripts, and every other utterly pointless record on Berg’s ridiculous discovery demand list. This really is unprecedented! Never in American history has this happened before!
Now that we’ve established agreement that this hasn’t happened before, what was your point?
Name all the other presidents who have published their BCs, or have been asked to release their BCs.
Ha- Yguy’s point is that since Obama is the first President to even bother to provide proof of his birth in the United States, Yguy feels that this makes him the most suspect.
The mind boggles.
The good old heads I win tails you lose argument. Provide proof of being born here if you dont provide it you’re hiding something. Provide proof of your birth and you must be trying to throw people off so you must be hiding something.
Wow, you really have been on an irony roll, haven’t you? Ahhh..projection…such a common birther trait.
And if even it does not work, you can have it repaired to get it to work. Today on page 17 of the Flemish newspaper “De Morgen”:there is article on Alfons Vandamme, aged 82 and living in Lebbeke, still repairs type writers. He recently repaired Nick Cave’s type writer. Alfons Vandamme is mentioned on this funny English-language web page:
http://www.dirkvanweelden.net/category/schrijfmachine/
(of course, when the next forged BC appears, the possibility that everything was copy pasted from that page must be taken into account)
The listing of the island of birth as Oahu is not a red flag. As you can see by clicking here, the City and County of Honlulu have been merged into one administrative unit to govern the entire island of Oahu. There is no county known as Oahu in Hawaii.
The genuine Certification of Live Birth that Obama posted online and apparently genuine Certificates of Live Birth from the 1960s that others have posted online have a field for island of birth.
The most obvious problem with the document that Dr C has posted above is, of course, the citation on the document of a statute that would not be written until many years later. Furthermore, I have trouble believing that any registrar would accept a certificate that states that the place of birth was Honolulu but then specifies the hospital as one unknown in Kenya.
Anyone else think that our buddy “yguy” fits the parameters below? I mean he has definately used 3-6 on this thread alone…
1. Allege that there’s a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
2. Use fake experts to support your story. “Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility,” says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist “both sides” must be heard and cry censorship when “dissenting” arguments or experts are rejected.
Thanks for that link! That guy is having a lot of fun. For me though, it brings back memories of writing term papers with a pile of correction tape next to me. It occurs to me that the look of a typed original, especially one typed with a worn ribbon has to be nearly impossible to fake. Nearly, anyway.
Yes, obviously.
I know I always beat up on the Post and Fail, but they kind of make it easy. The site is so over the top that they have “jumped the shark” from the first day they were on the net….Another entertaining article by them. by noted nut Robert Quinn….
AN OPEN LETTER TO AMERICA
by Robert Quinn
Tale of a “flawed” birth certificate now threatening our Constitution and Country
(Jun. 2, 2010) — A long time ago, about one and one half years or so, I received an e-mail questioning the authenticity of a Hawaiian birth certificate which Barack Obama had posted on the “Daily Kos” website to silence claims that he might not be eligible to seek the Presidency of the United States. Was this the “transparency” he promised America? It seemed so until questioners pointed out that his posted document (which I’ve seen and copied), titled “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) had the birth certificate number blacked out, contained no birth hospital name, attending physician’s name, birth witnesses’ names, etc. All required information….and all missing! This was “transparency”?
Article II, Section 1 of The Constitution states: “no person except a natural born Citizen of the United States, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…” The only Hawaiian document conferring natural-born status was a Certificate of Live Birth, which would have all the above missing information on it. A “Certification of Live Birth” (COLB) only confers, at best, a naturalized citizenship status. Obama, a Constitutional scholar, was obviously aware of this and knew that he could not allow the Hawaii Department of Health’s original birth certificate to be seen for if it agreed (which he so claimed) with the COLB he had posted on Daily Kos, he was thereby ineligible to seek the Presidency; hence, a reason for his spending (to date) an estimated $2,000,000 in legal fees to prevent disclosure! Imagine – if it was a true “Certificate of Live Birth,” he would have posted it immediately, not substitute a false or limited document in its place, unless he was hiding something incriminating.
Reflections for Those Who Dismiss Challenges to Obama’s Eligibility
Obama knowingly posted a limited or a false COLB on a website, claiming that the Hospital copy matched his. If so, that would have made both documents COLB’S and Obama a “naturalized” citizen at best. Once challenged, however, he realized the implication and immediately refused any access (to date) to the Hospital copy. Why? If it was a true “Certificate of Live Birth,” at worst it would make his initial claim of its being identical to his copy false but it would not make him ineligible for the Office. If, however, it was not a “Certificate of Live Birth”….need I continue?
Whenever Obama’s attorneys appeared in court to defend him they never once offered a Certificate of Live Birth to prove his eligibility, instead claiming Plaintiffs or Courts had no “standing” on the issue. Would they use this defense if Iran agreed to discuss nuclear disarmament with Obama but insisted that he first provide a valid “Certificate of Live Birth” to confirm his right to speak for our divided Nation?
When an active, decorated Army Officer went to court, refusing transfer to Afghanistan until Obama produced a valid “Certificate of Live Birth” to silence the many lawsuits challenging his eligibility, the officer risked a military trial and possible imprisonment, yet Obama, rather than resolving this issue, sent lawyers to court to prevent disclosure of his Birth Certificate. Think about it: any document which could and should corroborate his eligibility he keeps hidden from view! Do we really need the proverbial house to fall upon us?
Just the other day, Fox News called itself “the most trusted name in News.” Many viewers and listeners ask Fox why it hasn’t reported on any of the previous or current eligibility lawsuits. Ignoring all mention of them is truly “unfair and unbalanced,” especially for a news organization. Incidentally, the rest of the news media is so quiet on this issue they make a “silent” movie film seem deafening by comparison.
Millions are clamoring for Obama to produce a valid Certificate of Live Birth yet, at a recent meeting he asked that people stop asking for it. What a pathetic response to a burning issue.
Obama has never, I repeat, never been “vetted.” Remember, the birth certificate which he put on a website was not a Certificate of Live Birth and was obviously a deliberate deception on his part since he knew it would not justify his eligibility.
The passport he used to enter war-ridden Pakistan in 1981 was not a U.S. passport since U.S. passports were not issued in 1981 to regular American citizens. Also, his school and medical records, etc. were all blocked by him from public access.
Who would spend over $2,000,000 in legal fees rather than simply produce a legitimate Certificate of Live Birth when seeking the office of President, unless the Certificate would confirm not his eligibility but his ineligibility?
The U.S. Senate “vetted” John McCain yet later refused to “vet” Barack Obama when requested to by Republicans.
Some argue that if the lawsuits presently in various courts force Obama to release documents confirming that he is not a “natural-born” American citizen there will be riots in the streets if he is removed from office. Why, I ask, if he obtained the office unlawfully by deception or fraud, should he be rewarded with the prize he unlawfully sought? Are Truth and Honesty no longer desired attributes in a candidate? In 1973 some members of the Supreme Court voted to permit the killing of innocent children in the womb while other members today are more concerned about riots in the streets. How ironic; the first group didn’t fear God’s anger while the second group fears Man’s!
If the withheld documents would truly confirm Obama’s eligibility, as his supporters contend, why won’t any member of the Democratic Party suggest their release to the public? The answer is obvious.
When Obama defenders claim eligibility arguments are racially-motivated, consider that Alan Keyes, a black man who is a former presidential candidate, instituted a lawsuit against Obama, charging he is not a “natural born” Citizen. Is Keyes racially motivated? Think about it.
Other issues, such as Obama’s possible British, Kenyan or Indonesian citizenship, are being addressed by many others, adding to this list against someone who has given a new meaning to the word “TRANSPARENCY.”
http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/06/02/once-upon-a-crime/
The ignorance of the posters is truly amazing. The most impressive part is how they weave in incorrect and debunked information as true and validated. When you see ignorance like that you know that the Post and Fail and the other sites are doing their job….
Capt-Dax says:
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM
From reading all the material on the subject of natural born citizens I can’t help but conclude the following:
1) Citizens of united states was never properly defined by the framers mainly because only state law could define whom were born a citizen of the state which in return automatically made them a citizen of the united states under article 4.
2) Congress in 1866 recognized not all states recognized people of color as citizens and set out to define who were citizens of the united states through statute and amendment to the constitution.
3) Congress decided to recognize all persons born or naturalized as citizens of the united states as long as they could not be claimed as subjects of another country.
4) The 14th amendment was clearly designed to recognized only those politically attached to the nation (citizens) and no other.
5) Just as a naturalized citizen cannot be claimed by any other foreign power as their citizens, neither can anyone born.
Obama cannot be a citizen of the united states under the true meaning behind born or naturalized subject to the jurisdiction of the united states.
Justice Gray himself confirmed this in Elk v Wilkins writing for the majority in defining subject to the jurisdiction as political attachment and not mere place of birth. This was in perfect agreement with acts of congress of 1866, 1868 and 1874.
“If it was intended that anybody who was a citizen by birth should be eligible, it would only have been necessary to say,
“no person, except a native-born citizen”; but the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the president should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.
It may be observed in passing that the current phrase “native-born citizen” is well understood; but it is pleonasm and should be discarded; and the correct designation, “native citizen” should be substituted in all constitutional and statutory enactments, in judicial decisions and in legal discussions where accuracy and precise language are essential to intelligent discussion.”
It’s a rather clear testimony to the fact that simply being “native born” does not mean that one is “natural born” but “accuracy and intelligent discussion” are not the goals of propaganda.
rick says:
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 at 5:06 PM
i first researched barry in 06′, after two and a half hours, when i shut off the pc, i knew his legal name is barry soetero, he’s a kenyan born indonesian citizen and a lifelong communist and muslim. i won’t bore y’all with the rest. the fact is i wrote everyone you wrote, plus. silence is all i ever recieved so, i joined AMERICAN GRAND JURY and performed an act of citizenery i never thought i would have to. then i found youtube, i rant as freexratedspeech. here’s the deal bob, what we have here is a criminal conspiracy never before seen. if leavenworth’s gallows are still up, they would be working daily for 3 month’s, easy. it’s AWESOME to find people who know the truth of what’s really going on. GOOD JOB! but, with all the co-conspiritors involved, it will be an uphill fight, all the way. though i never recieve a response, i will keep writing to all the criminal’s involved, informing them of their treason. never give up on the truth.
Robert Laity says:
Thursday, June 3, 2010 at 2:29 AM
In addition,because of Obama’s treasonous acts including while a US Senator, having given aid and comfort to an enemy of the USA ,Raila Odinga of Kenya,by overtly campaigning for him in Kenyan elections (a matter for which Obama is currently under investigation at the International Criminal Court in the Hague),is PRECLUDED FROM “Holding any office under the US” (See 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381)
And my personal favorite below….
michaelsr says:
Wednesday, June 2, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Please forgive me if I have misread your comment. I do not see the commonly accepted definition of NBC. The definition of a natural born citizen has been completely, thoroughly, and almost nauseatingly dissected and analyzed for us at the web site below. His name is Mario Apuzzo and he is the lead attorney in Kerchner vs. Obama. Even if you have a clear idea of NBC, Mario’s blog entries make for fascinating reading, very worthwhile !!
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
Black Lion –
Sorry, I had missed your latest two additions here and am just catching up. A few comments on the nutjobs whose words you’ve passed along here:
1. Robert Quinn – Wow…he sure knows how to weave almost every long dead birther lie and myth together, doesn’t he. The only thing I found “new” was his claim that somehow a HI COLB meant someone was only a “naturalized” citizen. LOL! Boy, some of the birther arguments are really bad, but that one just smacks of all sorts of dumb, dumb, dumb!
2. Capt-Dax – Well, I think you said it best in your post about how they: “weave in incorrect and debunked information as true and validated”. That pretty much sums up everything that kook said.
3. rick – Wow. An angry AGJ person trying to peddle his lame stories. I think I’ve actually seen these exact words posted under other names and on other places on different dates. Therefore, not only is the story itself bunk, but it is likely re-copied cut & paste of a made up story. That’s even more lame!
4. Robert Laity – Well, that dude’s a total well known nutjob poster who is way off the rails. I can’t believe he’s still trying to stroke and peddle the completely fictional Rail Odinga story! Boy, these folks really live in a world of make believe, don’t they?
5. michaelsr – Ooooh…. A zomibe Apuzzo worshipper! LOL! Seems like there are a number of these buzzing around these days, pretty much peddling almost word-for-word the same stuff. How sad, these folks take Apuzzo’s words as gospel because he is able to speak and write better than most of the birther leaders. These poor gullible saps just eat up everything Apuzzo says and are completely blind to the fact that any real lawyer easily rips Apuzzo to shreds and that while Apuzzo is an actual laywer, unlike many of the birther’s who like to “play lawyer”, that he is really nothing more than a low-level ambulance chaser with no solid understanding of Constitutional Law. Heck, Mario can’t even demonstrate that he understands such basic legal principles of standing & injury! LMAO!
It just cracks me up how many delusional folks there are, pining their hopes on myths & con men that can never come through for them…
G, I couldn’t agree with you more. Those birthers are so delusional it is actually hilarious to read some of their rantings…