Main Menu

Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Doesn’t Really Say He Was Born in Hawaii

The facts: In June of 2008, an image of a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth for Barack Hussein Obama II appeared on a web site called the Daily Kos. Similar images would appear at Barack Obama’s Fight the Smears web site, along with FactCheck.org and Politifact.com. The document says on its face that the Location of Barack Obama’s birth is Honolulu.

Location of Birth

Location of Birth

The theory: The Obama conspiracy theory states that the document’s assertion of Obama’s place of birth is meaningless for a number of possible reasons:

What is the Obama Document? The document is titled “Certification of Live Birth”. It is a computer-generated document consisting of selected information from an original document that would have been filed around the time of birth, numbered and certified by the Hawaii Department of Health. The COLB is the “certified copy” form for live births currently issued by the State of Hawaii. Such forms are called a “certified copies” because the State adds a seal and signature certifying that the document is a true copy. A number of similar form certificates have been published on the Internet. Documents like this are popularly called “short forms” because they do not contain the full data set in the original filing.

The role of the birth certificate in citizenship: According to the US State Department, the Birth Certificate is considered “primary evidence” of US citizenship. The State Department describes an acceptable birth certificate as “Certified birth certificate issued by the city, county or state”. Further, the certificate must have these features:

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.

datefiled

Date Registered

sig

Registrar Signature

seal

Hawaii State Seal

Analysis of theories

- The document has been amended: The assertion is that the original birth registration said one thing, but that it was amended later and the computer-printed abstract reflects that amendment. This can be ruled out by a provision of Hawaiian Law that requires amended certificates to be  “marked distinctly” with the word “altered”. §338-16 Further evidence that the birth certificate has not been amended is found in the long-form version of the certificate which includes no amendment.

- The location of birth is a clerical error: This possibility was ruled out when the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health and the Registrar of Vital Statistics announced that they had verified “original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures” and that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

- The location of birth is really the location of registration: No justification has been provided for this statement. It would seem to be false on its face.

- Hawaii allows registration of any child in Hawaii over one year old as being born in Hawaii: This comes from misquoting a comment from the Hawaiian Homelands Act of 1911. The Hawaii Department of Health web site says: “The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii.” The misquoted version leaves out “born in Hawaii”. More advanced versions of this theory take into account the Hawaiian birth requirement, suggesting that only minimal documentation was required for such a registration. Any version of this theory is, however, ruled out because Certificates of Hawaiian birth are for registrations of a one year old or older and Obama COLB shows his registration 4 days after his birth.

- Hawaii allows residents to register foreign-born infants as being born in Hawaii: Hawaiian Law §338-17.8 says:

Certificates for children born out of State. (a)  Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child… [L 1982, c 182, §1]

The law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982 (the “L 1982″) , 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration on August 8, 1961.

Conspiracy theorists suggest that some similar law may have existed before 1982, but this is not true. When Hawaiian law is amended, the previous laws and dates are included in the citation and there is no previous law citation above. In addition, examination of the 1959 code shows no such provision.

– Obama was adopted from a foreign country

There are a couple of insurmountable objections to this idea. The law §338-20.5 says:

“The new certificate of birth shall show the true or probable foreign country of birth, and that the certificate is not evidence of United States citizenship for the child for whom it is issued or for the adoptive parents.”

The other problem with this theory is that birth registration for foreign-born adoption was a new procedure introduced in Hawaii in 1979, when Barack Obama was already 18 years old. It was introduced as a result of the 1977 recommendation of the National Center for Health Statistics. See US Vital Statistics History 1950-1995.

The Hawaii Department of Health has stated on numerous occasions that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

- Block 7(c) of the birth registration form allows the entry of a foreign country for place of birth.

This one traces back at least as far as Alan Keyes lawsuit in California. See Page 11, lines 19-20:

Box 7C of the vault Certificate of Live Birth contains a question, whether the birth was in Hawaii or another State or Country.

Here’s what Keyes is talking about:

Block 7c

Block 7c

And indeed it says right there “Foreign Country”. The problem with this is that Block 7c is the Mother’s Usual Residence, not the birth place of the baby, which is in block 6a, and has no place for a foreign country.

Block 6a

Block 6a

The full certificate showing the context is here. The Hawaii Department of Health has stated on numerous occasions that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

- The Obama document is a “Certification”, not a “Certificate”: The relevance of this distinction is unclear. Websters says of certification: a certified statement, and of certificate:   a document containing a certified statement. Whatever it is called, Hawaiian Law states that it is prima facie evidence in court of what it says. If you fill out the form requesting a “Certified Copy of Birth Record” at the Hawaii Department of Health web site, this is what you get.

primafacie

Court notice

Hawaii has in recent history produced two kinds of birth certificates. One is a photocopy of a document filed at the time of birth; the other is a computer-printed abstract copy of the facts of birth. Both are “certified copies”. I use these words because if one fills out the “Request for certified copy of birth record” at the Hawaii Department of Health web site, what they will receive is a certified copy of the computer-printed version.  According to Hawaiian law, however, the older format should be available through some administrative process, although what it is does not appear on the Department of Health web site.

Hawaiian Law states that for legal purposes, all certified copies are equally valid, including those by computer printout. §338-13

(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.

See also the article here: When is a Certificate not a Certificate?

The Hawaii Department recently stated:

In June 2008, President Obama released his Certification of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “short form” birth certificate. Both documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawai’i, and both provide the same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai’i at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.

- There were no laser printers when Obama was born in 1961: This is a basic misunderstanding of what the document is. The document is a “certified copy,” a copy created by a computer printout, then stamped and sealed by the State. The document itself was produced in 2007 (See stamp image above) when laser printers were ubiquitous.

- Recorded information may have been altered and a new birth certificate issued showing different information pursuant to §338-17.7. The law says:

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.”

This is what we call the “witness protection program”. Since Stanley Ann Dunham has a history prior to Barack’s birth, it is evident that she was not in the witness protection program, and hence that her son wasn’t either. There is one other small problem with this theory: the law cited was not passed until 1973, when Barack Obama was 12 years old. Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate provides further evidence that the certificate has not been altered.

- Sun Yat-Sen the first President of China has a Hawaiian birth certificate but he was born in China.

Certificate of Hawaiian Birth

Certificate of Hawaiian Birth

“This is to certify that Sun Yat Sen now residing at Kula Maui, TH [Territory of Hawaii], whose signature is attached has made application No. 25 for a Certificate of Birth. And it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands on the 24th day of November, AD 1870.”

Sun Yat-Sen had a “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” from a special program which Obama did not qualify for and received a different type of birth certificate. Sun Yat-Sen produced an affidavit and two witnesses of his Hawaiian birth to get the certificate. Biographies say Sun Yat-Sen was born in China, which suggests that his Certificate of Hawaiian Birth was obtained through fraud and the two witnesses lied, and probably because he had a price on his head.

What was done 50 years before Obama’s birth is hardly relevant. Hawaii wasn’t even a state when that was issued. Different program, different people.

Conclusion: The Obama document says on its face that he was born in Hawaii.

Does this mean that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii? There are two remaining possibilities that allow Obama to be born somewhere else, one is that the birth registration was fraudulent, or that the birth certificate is a fake.

For more see Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Forgery – Part 1.

Print Friendly

, , , , , , , , , , ,

103 Responses to Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate Doesn’t Really Say He Was Born in Hawaii

  1. avatar
    Kevin Smith December 18, 2008 at 8:36 pm #

    Love the site and you will have to excuse Ted. He puts the very same messages on my blog concerning these issues. I will put a link in for my readers to visit here. Good site.

  2. avatar
    Freiherr December 18, 2008 at 8:59 pm #

    Who is going to be the judge to inaugurate the president-elect and what are his legal responsibilites?

  3. avatar
    Unreal December 18, 2008 at 9:24 pm #

    The issue is the wording on the original document. It either says Certification of Live Birth or Certificate of Live Birth. If you were born in Hawaii for sure you get the Certificate of Live Birth. If you were born someplace else and then your parents applied for a birth certificate, then you would get a Certification of Live Birth. And that was the case back when Obama was born. Show the original document. If your website supposes this is all garbage, why would he be spending so much money defending himself, when he could simply provide the original document.

    You also left out the audio recording obtained by Hillary manager Phillip Berg, who has filed a suit, yet to come before the SCOTUS, where Obama’s grandmother recounts the day Obama was born in Kenya.

    If you are going to try to blast these ‘theories’ out of the water (and some are bogus I agree) don’t ignore the real issues that are not cleared up.

  4. avatar
    koyaan December 18, 2008 at 9:58 pm #

    Unreal wrote:

    The issue is the wording on the original document. It either says Certification of Live Birth or Certificate of Live Birth. If you were born in Hawaii for sure you get the Certificate of Live Birth. If you were born someplace else and then your parents applied for a birth certificate, then you would get a Certification of Live Birth. And that was the case back when Obama was born.

    That’s incorrect.

    A Certification of Live Birth is a computer generated, certified copy of a Certificate of Live Birth. See HRS 338-13 which is referenced on every Certification of Live Birth and was cited in this article, which you obviously didn’t bother to read.

    You also left out the audio recording obtained by Hillary manager Phillip Berg, who has filed a suit, yet to come before the SCOTUS, where Obama’s grandmother recounts the day Obama was born in Kenya.

    And you leave out the fact that nowhere in the tape does his grandmother recount the day he was born, and you also leave out the fact that Berg only presented a portion of the audio recording, and left out the part of the recording where it was very clearly stated that Obama was not born in Kenya.

    And Berg was never Hillary’s manager. He’s an incompetent attorney, a 9/11 Truther, and a documented liar.

    If you are going to try to blast these theories’ out of the water (and some are bogus I agree) don’t ignore the real issues that are not cleared up.

    Everything you said here was bogus.

    k

  5. avatar
    IOpian December 18, 2008 at 10:14 pm #

    Since you apparently have all of the answers can you tell me why Obama has spent over $800,000 in lawyer fees to keep the vault copy from seeing the light of day ?

    Also, have you seen it yourself and is that the basis of your certainty ?

    While you’re at it how about enlightening us about what’s on his college transcripts. You may recall in 2004 neither Bush nor Kerry had an issue providing theirs.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 18, 2008 at 11:44 pm #

    IOpian said: “me why Obama has spent over $800,000 in lawyer fees to keep the vault copy from seeing the light of day ?”

    If you surf the Internet, you will see

    $2.1 million, One Million, $300,000, $500,000 , $300,000, $700,000 and now you make it $800,000.

    The first point is that this is a totally made-up number.

    The second point is that most of the lawsuits do not name Obama, so he is not a party to them (this includes the Andy Martin, Alan Keyes, Wrotnowsky, and Donofrio). Obama didn’t even file a response to Berg’s Supreme Court appeal (which does name Obama). Leo C. Donofrio (whose suit was recently denied by the Supreme court with no help from Obama’s lawyers) actually believes that Obama was born in Hawaii and that the presented birth certificate is genuine.

    The third point is that in the one case where Obama did respond, the Berg suit, there were allegations all over the board including fraud, that he was an Indonesian Citizen, and the whole laundry list of misinformation documented on this web site. For the full Berg treatment, visit What’s Your Evidence?.

    There is a myth going around that if Obama just shows the birth certificate everyone will be satisfied. Two problems with that. Berg’s offer to drop the suit was if Obama provided “proof that he was a natural born citizen”, essentially meaning that Obama has to individually answer every one of those trash allegations in his suit, among which the allegation that the certificate was a forgery is just one. Second, if the first perfectly legal birth certificate did not satisfy the hard core conspiracy theorists, it is folly to think that a birth certificate Mark II would satisfy them. [Ok, it would satisfy SOME people, but not the ones running all the trash-Obama web sites.

    “This suit [Keyes v, Bowen] , like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous,” [Obama's lawyer Woocher] said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. “There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us,” he said.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19450_Page2.html

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2008 at 12:17 am #

    McCain refused to release his college transcripts too. Given that everything Obama releases pawed over by crank experts, cut into little pieces, twisted around and pasted back together in the ugliest possible collage, it hardly makes sense for him to release anything.

  8. avatar
    samir December 19, 2008 at 12:17 am #

    Truthers and Birthers should find a nice island where they can take turns coming up with the lamest fairy tales around their campfire. Then they should lie down in it.

  9. avatar
    Cort Wrotnowski December 19, 2008 at 12:30 am #

    Wow. You are quite skilled at avoiding the real problems. This phony document boils down to two or three problems.

    1. It is not traceable – no hospital, no doctor’s name, etc.

    2. In 1961, people from Africa were referred to as Negroes, not “African”

    3. Now there is evidence even the birth announcement is a phony. There is at least one affadavit of a person living at the apartment building in question, who was there in 1961 and does not recall them being there ever at all. So, more “study” is needed of that too.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2008 at 1:15 am #

    Cort’s words in italics.

    1. It is not traceable – no hospital, no doctor’s name, etc.

    If there were a hospital the hospital wouldn’t confirm. There’s an interview in the Honolulu Advertiser where the hospital official says that she would love to say something but “my hands are tied”. The same laws the hospital cited would prevent a medical professional (assuming they are still alive 47 years later) from saying anything either. Dead end.

    “We can’t confirm or deny it — even though all the information out there says he was born at Kapiolani Hospital. And that’s because of the HIPA [sic] law.”

    Tong acknowledged that the center has received daily inquiries from news agencies far and wide asking for confirmation of Obama’s birthplace. Much as she wishes she could do it, Tong said it’s not possible.

    “Our hands are tied,” she said.

    2. In 1961, people from Africa were referred to as Negroes, not “African”

    People from Africa not Africans… What a remarkable concept! On a birth record the parent’s race is what the parent considers it to be, not what 1960’s Americans considered it to be. This is discussed in detail in Barack Obama’s Birth Certificate is a Forgery – Part 1.

    3. Now there is evidence even the birth announcement is a phony. There is at least one affadavit of a person living at the apartment building in question, who was there in 1961 and does not recall them being there ever at all. So, more “study” is needed of that too.

    Yeah, a friend of mine gave me that link. First, that affidavit has some blatantly false comments about Hawaiian law, so my BS alarm went off. The other thing is that there is an article published in the Honolulu Advertiser that says not only them, but another Honolulu paper printed the same birth announcement, and not only the same announcement, but the same announcements BEFORE and AFTER it. Meaning that the announcement came from a list of births [from the health department], not some individual buying an ad.

    Fringe theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya are left to ponder how two independent Honolulu daily newspapers and the state Department of Health could be part of conspiracy half a century ago to thwart the truth about the future president of the United States.

    As for who lived at the address, the local newspaper did a much more thorough investigation than those hired goons.

  11. avatar
    EL December 19, 2008 at 1:37 am #

    Thank you! It’s good to see all the information gathered in one place. Not that that will stop conspiracy theorists, who are dead set on believing this garbage.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2008 at 8:05 am #

    EL, thanks for your comment. This site is not for the conspiracy theorists, but for the unfortunate folks who have been unsettled by their misinformation.

  13. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2008 at 9:49 am #

    Freiherr asks:”Who is going to be the judge to inaugurate the president-elect and what are his legal responsibilites?”

    Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath of office to Barack Obama according to the Associated Press. Beyond witnessing the oath (and looking really solemn), I know of no other responsibility on the one administering it.

  14. avatar
    Mike December 19, 2008 at 10:38 am #

    There is also a “precautionary principle” approach:
    Even if the chance of Obama being foreign-born is extremely small (like 1%) the possible consequences are so enormous that serious effort to verify his birthplace is absolutely warranted.
    I do believe that a computer-generated document (especially one that is issued during his presidential campaign) is not enough in this case.
    Obama didn’t even say why he chose to post this “certification” instead of 1961 certificate. Was the 1961 certificate lost? stolen? coffee spilled on it?
    Why no explanation?

    This late in the game I think it’s completely appropriate to look at Obama’s 1961 certificate (if such exists) and perform forensic analysis. That could be ordered by some court or maybe US dept. of State or some other agency …

    By the way:
    Nobody is suggesting a conspiracy started in 1961; the only “conspiracy” in 1961 would be posting a birth announcement in newspaper(s) and/or post-factum birth registration in Hawaii.

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 19, 2008 at 2:48 pm #

    Mike, thanks for your note.

    I think 1% is a huge overestimate.

    Hawaiian officials say that Obama’s birth is on file in Hawaii. That alone proves he was born there since in 1961 they didn’t register foreign-born children of residents (started in 1982). A State Health Department spokesperson later clarified that the director was saying Obama was born in Hawaii. So for anything to be awry you have to have the two highest officials in Hawaii birth registration in on a conspiracy. And if THOSE TWO are in on the conspiracy, they could manipulate ANY document of any kind that would come out of the state. So looking at another document wouldn’t prove anything to the hard-core doubters. For normal folks, a perfectly legal birth certificate is available.

    And in the impossible case that Obama’s mother did start a conspiracy back in 1961 to plant a newspaper announcement, Barack Obama wouldn’t have had anything to do with it. Think about what a catastrophe for such a great basketball player to be denied the presidency!

    As an adult, I had to write to the state to get my birth certificate. As far as I know my family never had one from when I was born. I can think of a dozen reasons why Obama doesn’t have a 47-year-old piece of paper.

    We know that two independent Hawaii newspapers carried the same birth announcement with the same other birth announcement before and after. That could only have happened if the announcements came from the state, which means the State would have had to have been in on it from the beginning.

    OR

    The state was fooled from the beginning, in which case you couldn’t prove it today.

  16. avatar
    EL December 20, 2008 at 2:32 am #

    I suggest you add another theory and the proper debunking. The “even Hawaii won’t accept the COLB” myth is quite prevalent. In reality, Hawaii accepts the COLB for everything except proof of native Hawaiian ancestry for its Hawaii Home Lands program

    http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl

    “You must be a native Hawaiian, defined as “any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778″

    This is the one case where the long form birth certificate is required, along with birth certificates for the applicant’s biological father and mother.

  17. avatar
    koyaan December 20, 2008 at 9:46 pm #

    IOpian wrote:

    Since you apparently have all of the answers can you tell me why Obama has spent over $800,000 in lawyer fees to keep the vault copy from seeing the light of day ?

    No one has shown that he’s spent over $800,000 in lawyer fees on this.

    While you’re at it how about enlightening us about what’s on his college transcripts. You may recall in 2004 neither Bush nor Kerry had an issue providing theirs.

    I don’t care about his college transcripts.

    k

  18. avatar
    koyaan December 20, 2008 at 9:47 pm #

    admin wrote:

    McCain refused to release his college transcripts too.

    He’s also refused to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. ;)

    k

  19. avatar
    koyaan December 20, 2008 at 9:51 pm #

    Cort Wrotnowski wrote:

    There is at least one affadavit of a person living at the apartment building in question, who was there in 1961 and does not recall them being there ever at all.

    There is no affidavit from any neighbor. There is only an affidavit of the investigator.

    k

  20. avatar
    koyaan December 20, 2008 at 9:56 pm #

    Mike wrote:

    There is also a “precautionary principle” approach:
    Even if the chance of Obama being foreign-born is extremely small (like 1%) the possible consequences are so enormous that serious effort to verify his birthplace is absolutely warranted.

    The possible consequences are so enormous?

    What on earth are you talking about?

    k

  21. avatar
    koyaan December 20, 2008 at 9:59 pm #

    admin wrote:

    That alone proves he was born there since in 1961 they didn’t register foreign-born children of residents (started in 1982).

    And even that wasn’t foreign born births. It was out of state births.

    k

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 21, 2008 at 7:45 am #

    koyaan wrote:

    And even that wasn’t foreign born births. It was out of state births.

    Foreign births are “out of state”. I don’t see anything in §338-17.8 that excludes foreign countries (there is a chance I’m wrong about this). State vital statistics agencies have a number of different types of registrations including foreign-born adoptions, out of state registrations, amended certificates and delayed certificates. However, when they are printed, they are distinctive in content and they are true on their face (except for law enforcement action in the witness protection program).

  23. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 21, 2008 at 7:54 am #

    koyaan wrote:

    [McCain] also refused to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. ;)

    By not releasing it, he has 90% of the newspaper web sites repeating the false story that he was born in the Canal Zone instead of Colon in the Republic of Panama. However, both his SHORT FORM and his LONG FORM show the same location of birth.

    It is now my view that the short and long form birth certificates that appear on the Internet showing McCain was born in the Republic of Panama are fakes. I say this because first, they have appeared as is from nowhere with no clear provenance, and second, because a contemporary birth announcement in the Panamanian newspaper says he was born on the base.

    One more time. It is NOW my view that the McCain Long Form birth certificate is genuine and that the Short Form birth certificate is fake. The Long Form is part of Hollander v. McCain and comes from the Ohio State law school web site. The Short Form just magically appeared on the Internet. I don’t know where John McCain was really born.

    Third time is a charm. Both McCain birth certificates (not from McCain) are fakes. See: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/john-mccains-fake-birth-certificate/

  24. avatar
    Colony14Author December 21, 2008 at 3:26 pm #

    I don’t care where he was born, but both McCain and Obama (and every other candidate) should have to produce a long-form birth certificate. What is so difficult about that? Why spend money on attorneys (regardless of how much or how little is spent) to keep the document hidden? It only prompts people to be suspicious.

    If Hugo Chavez says he was born in Cleveland, can he run for President of the U.S. in 2012? What’s wrong with having a few rules?

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 21, 2008 at 6:19 pm #

    Colony14Author, Great idea! Considering all the heated discussion, misinformation and confusion this time around, I think some rules would a very good thing. The “Presidential Qualifications Verification Act of 2009″ has a snappy title, don’t you think?

    If you’d like to draft some legislation, go ahead and post it here. We could discuss it.

  26. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 21, 2008 at 6:42 pm #

    I don’t personally know that Barack Obama has spend any money to “keep the document hidden”. Certainly the Berg lawsuit had a laundry list of claims that went beyond the Birth Certificate into Indonesian adoption and the like. Donofrio concedes Obama was born in Hawaii and Obama wasn’t even named in that suit. Of course, I don’t follow all the lawsuits.

  27. avatar
    Hitandrun December 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm #

    admin, et al,

    May I draw on your expertise to shed light on the following areas?

    (1) Does Hawaiian Law require that an abstracted Certification of Live Birth (CnOLB) state if the original Certificate of Live Birth (CeOLB)has been amended? Is there an example of either, marked with the word “altered”, available for view on the Internet? Will the date of alteration be recorded as well?

    (2) You note that Hawaiian Law 338-17.8 for registering ‘foreign-born’ children was passed in 1982. What law or procedure obtained in 1961 for this situation?

    (3) When did Hawaii change from photocopy to abstracted printout certification of birth?

    (4) Is Chief Justice Roberts legally empowered to refuse to swear Mr Obama into office until the latter satisfies him as to eligibility by releasing confirmatory documentation like a detailed CeOLB with supporting hospital records?

    (5) With respect to medical professionals or hospital officials confirming Mr Obama’s birth details, you note their “hands are tied” by law. Can’t Mr Obama untie them at his pleasure? Why doesn’t he?

    (6) What are the “blatantly false comments about Hawaiian law” in the WND investigator’s affidavit?

    (7) Have you since learned anything new about the history and disposition of the ‘birth certificate’ Mr Obama came across during his high school years (or so he states in his autobiography DREAMS FROM MY FATHER)?

    (8) On the independent newspaper accounts of Mr Obama’s birth, must you assume State conspiracy rather than merely family deception to yield an inaccurate certificate? (Mind you, I still believe he was Hawaiian born, only that it has not been definitively proven and that I may be wrong.)

    (9) Do you believe Mr McCain is a natural born citizen and therefore Constitutionally eligible to serve as President? Do you detect a pattern of fraud and deception in his conduct and that of his campaign staff with respect to this issue? Are Obama and McCain doppelgangers?

    Regards,
    Hitandrun

  28. avatar
    Hitandrun December 29, 2008 at 5:52 pm #

    koyaan calls Mr Berg a “documented liar”.

    What are those documented lies?

    Thank you,
    Hitandrun

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 29, 2008 at 9:31 pm #

    Hitandrun asks:

    May I draw on your expertise to shed light on the following areas?

    (1) Does Hawaiian Law require that an abstracted Certification of Live Birth (CnOLB) state if the original Certificate of Live Birth (CeOLB)has been amended? Is there an example of either, marked with the word “altered”, available for view on the Internet? Will the date of alteration be recorded as well?

    Hawaiian law does not make a distinction between the Certification of Live Birth and the Certificate of Live Birth. They are both “certified copies” and treated under the same law. Specifically yes, Hawaiian law requires that amended records be so identified. I have not seen an amended example.

    (2) You note that Hawaiian Law 338-17.8 for registering foreign-born’ children was passed in 1982. What law or procedure obtained in 1961 for this situation?

    There was none. The Hawaii law web site has citations of previous versions of related laws at the footer of each law, and there is nothing prior to 1982.

    (3) When did Hawaii change from photocopy to abstracted printout certification of birth?

    Some time prior to 2001.

    (4) Is Chief Justice Roberts legally empowered to refuse to swear Mr Obama into office until the latter satisfies him as to eligibility by releasing confirmatory documentation like a detailed CeOLB with supporting hospital records?

    Chief Justice Roberts is under no obligation to participate in the Inauguration. He may refuse for any or no reason. The Constitution says only that the President shall take the oath, not who must administer it. As you may recall Lyndon Johnson took the oath of office from a federal judge in Dallas, Texas. Chester A. Arthur, upon the death of Garfield, took the oath from a New York state judge.

    (5) With respect to medical professionals or hospital officials confirming Mr Obama’s birth details, you note their “hands are tied” by law. Can’t Mr Obama untie them at his pleasure? Why doesn’t he?

    Under the Privacy Rule issued by DHHS under authority of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, an individual may sign an authorization for his medical records to be released to whomever he designates. That presumes that there are any such records or individuals remaining after 47 years. I have studied model medical retention policies and generally medical records are not retained for extended periods of time, save the registry of births that was recommended to be retained indefinitely. Not being an intimate of Barack Obama, I could not tell you his reasons.

    (6) What are the “blatantly false comments about Hawaiian law” in the WND investigator’s affidavit?

    We’re discussing the “affidavit” of Jorge L. Baro here. The attempt to fool someone by misleading them is what I call a lie. In this case Baro made two statements about Hawaii law:

    Investigators learned that of particular note, according to the official Hawaiian government web site, anyone born in Hawaii who is 1 year old or older and whose birth has not been previously registered in Hawaii could apply for the issuance of a LATE BIRTH CERTIFICATE called a CERTIFICATE OF HAWAIIAN BIRTH. The “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program” was established in 1911 during the territorial era and was terminated in 1972 during the statehood era.

    This misleads the reader into thinking that Barack Obama could have been registered under this program. However the program applies to children “1 year old or older” while Obama’s COLB shows that he was registered when he was 4 DAYS old.

    The second statement attempts to mislead the reader that Obama might have a “Late Birth Certificate”:

    Investigators learned that any individual having given birth other than in a medical facility that would normally produce what is commonly known as the “long form” or “vault copy” containing critical information such as time of birth, signatures of attending physician, etc., could simply visit the Department of Health and request a Late Birth Certificate also known as a “Hawaiian Birth Certificate”. This program was instituted to accommodate children born in rural areas of Hawaii.

    There is no such thing as a distinct document called a “Hawaiian Birth Certificate” for late registrations. In the case of a “late registration”, Hawaiian law §338-16 defines a late registration as one later than one year, and Obama’s registration was when he was 4 days old. The second point is that Hawaiian law also requires that “late certificates” be distinctly marked with the words “late”. While I could not find a reference, I doubt that the “evidentiary requirements” called for in Hawaiian law consist of simply visiting the Health Department and asking politely.

    I declare, folks must think Hawaiians are idiots, the stupid things they say that Hawaiian’s do for vital statistics.

    (7) Have you since learned anything new about the history and disposition of the birth certificate’ Mr Obama came across during his high school years (or so he states in his autobiography DREAMS FROM MY FATHER)?

    Not a peep.

    (8) On the independent newspaper accounts of Mr Obama’s birth, must you assume State conspiracy rather than merely family deception to yield an inaccurate certificate? (Mind you, I still believe he was Hawaiian born, only that it has not been definitively proven and that I may be wrong.)

    If there were somehow a fraudulent registration, the State would not have to have been involved.

    (9) Do you believe Mr McCain is a natural born citizen and therefore Constitutionally eligible to serve as President? Do you detect a pattern of fraud and deception in his conduct and that of his campaign staff with respect to this issue? Are Obama and McCain doppelgangers?

    I am fully convinced that John McCain is a natural born citizen of the United States. I am not so sure he is a “native born” citizen. There is a possibility of some deception viz-a-viz whether he was born in Panama or the Canal zone; I don’t know. Doppelgangers? No.

    koyaan calls Mr Berg a “documented liar”. What are those documented lies?

    “Lies” was koyaan’s word. What I can say for sure is that some of what Berg says is not true.

    I would call your attention to Alix Cavanaugh’s article: It seems you don’t need to know much about the law to be Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania for false statements about what the law is. And of course visit the encyclopedic dissection of Berg’s lawsuit on What’s Your Evidence?

    Looking up all these hyperlinks, and cutting and pasting information takes a lot of time. I’m not your clerk. Now, Mr. Hitandrun, let me suggest in the politest way I can, that you try doing your own research.

  30. avatar
    Alix Cavanaugh December 29, 2008 at 11:18 pm #

    In all fairness, as the author of one of the cited articles on Berg’s lawsuit, I think I should say that I’m wary of claiming that Berg “lied” about the law, in the sense of deliberately misstating doctrines or concealing relevant legal authorities.

    To be guilty of that, he would have to have known what those doctrines and authorities were — which would require either a general background knowledge of the area of law in question or minimal research and reading comprehension skills.

    And, frankly, having read that brief, I don’t think he possesses any of those qualities.

    Some of his bizzare factual assertions might well be knowing, deliberate deceptions — but as to his legal claims, I think the brief is evidence less of fraud than of stunning professional incompetence and ignorance.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 29, 2008 at 11:32 pm #

    Alix, I also tried to avoid the word “lie” for the same reason. I don’t know what was in the guy’s heart (or his brain) ;)

    I’ll edit my comment to make this clearer.

    Maybe this conspiracy theory stuff is wearing off on me, but it sure seems to me that somebody somewhere is intentionally fabricating stories about Obama.

  32. avatar
    EL December 30, 2008 at 12:28 am #

    To Hitandrun

    “(5) With respect to medical professionals or hospital officials confirming Mr Obama’s birth details, you note their “hands are tied” by law. Can’t Mr Obama untie them at his pleasure? Why doesn’t he?”

    I have some familiarity with medical records and HIPAA laws. Although it is recommended by medical records professionals to retain records of births permanently, Hawaii law does not require it.

    Haw. Rev. Stat. Section622-58(a-f)(1992)
    “Healthcare providers must retain medicalrecords in the original or reproduced formfor a minimum of seven years after the last data entry except in the case of minors whose records shall be retained during the period of minority plus seven years after the minor reaches the age of majority”

    I would expect, however, that the hospital would retain these records, but they would be in the archives, probably still on paper, and stored off site.

    Obama certainly could give written permission for the hospital to release his birth record to someone, but having released his COLB, I suspect he feels there are other things he’d rather concentrate on. It would also be a bit complicated, in that he might not want to release all medical information related to his birth, only the fact of the birth itself in the hospital. I’m not sufficiently versed in the nuances to know how that would work.

    A final note – one person I discussed this with online maintained that the hospital could confirm Ann Dunham was a patient in the maternity ward because she was deceased. Some research showed that is clearly incorrect, as legal opinion from several sources (including the AMA) has held that the duty of confidentiality does not cease with the death of the patient.

  33. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 30, 2008 at 7:51 am #

    El, thanks.

    While the Internet is a wonderful source of information, its limitations become apparent when you try to find out something like what a hospital’s medical retention policy was 47 years ago. And in spite of the policy, records can be lost or damaged over the course of time.

    I believe that it is more likely than not that Barack Obama was born at the Kapi’olani hospital and that they retain the birth registry from that period. I would guess that this record is in the form of a log book and would have minimal information, perhaps even less than the COLB.

  34. avatar
    Tes December 30, 2008 at 10:18 am #

    About, ” In reality, Hawaii accepts the COLB for everything except proof of native Hawaiian ancestry for its Hawaii Home Lands program. This is the one case where the long form birth certificate is required, along with birth certificates for the applicant’s biological father and mother.”

    A small clarification: The long form birth certificate is NOT “required” for the Home Lands Program. It’s PREFERRED because it contains information regarding geneology (e.g., the famous Box 7C). The link provided – http://hawaii.gov/dhhl/applicants/appforms/applyhhl – clearly states:

    “In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). ****Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL****”

    That link further states, ” There are times when the birth certificates for yourself and/or your parents or grandparents are not available and you have gotten “No-record” certifications from DOH. DHHL may accept secondary documents which assist in establishing family ties or blood quantum in place of primary documents.”

    Thus, just to be clear, the Certificate of Birth is preferred – but NOT required – even to participate in the Home Lands Program.

  35. avatar
    Tes December 30, 2008 at 10:51 am #

    About, Berg’s … mis-statements of fact. Of many possible examples, here are just a couple, easily verifiable ones (i.e., easy for you, yourself to verify as inaccurate).

    He has repeatedly stated in radio interviews and at least one YouTube Video that Factcheck.org cannot be relied upon because it is owned by “Anneburg of Chicago. Annenberg of Chicago is an organization that Obama sat on the board for a number of years ….”” (see http://www.americasright.com/2008/10/philip-berg-interview-hits-youtube.html at 3:58) or “Annenburg Challenge” (i.e., the organization on whose board Obama served in the 1990s). This is verifiably untrue.

    Factcheck.org is run by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania (“APPC”). (http://www.factcheck.org/about) APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg. (http://www.factcheck.org/about) APPC is funded by The Annenberg Foundation (established by Walter and Leonore Annenberg). http://www.annenbergfoundation.org) The Annenberg Foundation, which funds the APPC and issues grants on a wide variety of issues, worth 100s of millions of dollars, funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge – on whose board Obama served. (http://www.annenberginstitute.org/challenge/sites/chicago.html).

    Now, it’s one thing to make the argument that Factcheck.org is biased. It’s another thing to make the argument that the APPC, which runs Factcheck.org is governed by pro-Obama liberals. It’s another thing to argue that Annenburg Foundation – which funds APPC, which runs Factcheck.org, has been “overtaken” by liberals (although Ms. Annenburg endorsed McCain in 2008).

    But it’s a blatently, verifiably inaccurate statement to say that Factcheck is owned by the Annenburg-related organization on whose board Obama sat. That’s just – inaccurate.

    —-
    2. He continues to perpetuate the – inaccurate statement – that Obama committed perjury on his Illinois Bar Application. Berg’s site continues to state: “The Illinois Attorney Registration and Discipline Commission (ARDC) Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration for Barack H. Obama Jr. indicated NONE in the box for Full Former Name(s). Since we know that he has been known by other name(s), this statement is perjurious and as an attorney he knows better. What is he hiding?” (See http://www.obamacrimes.info/justthefacts.html sidebar).

    This claim was debunked months ago by Jeff Schrieber at http://www.americasright.com/2008/08/berg-v-obama-update-wednesday-august-27.html. You can debunk it yourself by reading the article, checking the links, and then calling Illinois yourself. (I did.)

    One might argue initially that this was just a “failure” to conduct the five minutes of research necessary to debunk the claim before filing suit. (Sorta like including the Canadian Birth Certificate signed by Dudley Dooright in his original complaint.) However, from the America’s Right story, we know that Jeff shows Berg this information. Yet – still, Berg continues to accuse Obama of perjury, based on this – clearly disproven – theory.

    —-
    3. He continues to assert that there was a State Department Travel Ban against travel to Pakistan in 1981, when Obama traveled there. (See most recent Writ Petition to Supreme Court, at pages 14-15 – at http://www.obamacrimes.info/103008US%20Supreme%20Court%20Writ%20of%20Certiorari.pdf

    However, as OCT has reported, this is simply untrue – there was no such BAN at the time. See http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/barack-obama-traveled-to-pakistan-on-an-indonesian-passport/ – and links cited therein.

    Thus, this is another misstatement of fact, easily proven as such.

  36. avatar
    EL December 30, 2008 at 11:50 am #

    Thanks, Tes. You are absolutely right, I was careless in my phrasing – it is the *information* which is required. As you correctly point out, that information can be proven other ways for the Hawaiian Home Lands program.

    I had gotten tired of seeing people misrepresent the COLB as inadequate to prove Obama’s birth because “Hawaii won’t even accept it.”

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 30, 2008 at 12:27 pm #

    Thanks Tes, especially for the information on the Illinois Bar Application, which I hadn’t gotten around to researching. There are so many of these crazy things going around.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy December 30, 2008 at 12:43 pm #

    It is also claimed that Factcheck.org is run by Obama supporters and contributors. I looked up the high-level staff at FactCheck on the Federal Elections Commission web site, and found that none of them had contributed to any candidate or party. Annenberg herself was very generous to McCain and the Republican Party. This is also something easily verified from one’s armchair.

  39. avatar
    Hitandrun January 3, 2009 at 4:29 pm #

    Thanks, one and all, for your most helpful replies. Naturally, my requests for tunnel light are directed only to those willing to respond, in an effort to make this site more than just another echo chamber for the self-preening ‘happy few’. Sadly, I note certain oppositional posts (including, I believe, ‘Ted’s’ opening comment on this thread) have been summarily cast down the Orwellian memory hole. Is this the shape of things to come? Hope not.

    Dr. Conspiracy writes:

    >There was [no 1961 Hawaiian law or procedure registering 'foreign-born' children].an individual may sign an authorization for his medical records to be released to whomever he designates. That presumes that there are any such records or individuals remaining after 47 years. I have studied model medical retention policies and generally medical records are not retained for extended periods of time, save the registry of births that was recommended to be retained indefinitely.I am fully convinced that John McCain is a natural born citizen of the United States. I am not so sure he is a “native born” citizen.<

    Can Mr McCain (born in 1936) be natural born despite being naturalized by law in 1937?

    With respect to Mr Berg’s “documented” lies, I was asking koyaan, not Doc, to document those ‘lies’. Thank you, Alix Cavanaugh, for your clarification. I believe the dual citizenship arguments against Mr Obama’s eligibility are weak and inapplicable, for the very reasons you note at your site.

    Thanks again for lighting up the tunnel.

    Regards,
    Hitandrun

  40. avatar
    Hitandrun January 3, 2009 at 4:39 pm #

    [Some gremlin seems to have deleted a portion of the preceding post in transmission.

    That portion originally read:]

    Dr. Conspiracy writes:

    >There was [no 1961 Hawaiian law or procedure registering ‘foreign-born’ children.an individual may sign…<

    [Hitandrun]

  41. avatar
    bogus info January 3, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    This is from one of the blogs–haven’t researched it yet:

    Please read the following Hawaii Laws about how you can get a Hawaii birth certificate for a person born in a foreign country, and other birth certificate laws that allow a Hawaii birth certificate to be amended and altered, and the original sealed and a new birth certificate established.

    Please also read Hawaii RULE 803 for Hearsay evidence which allows your friends or associates (like your Political party members or political action committee) to establish a “Reputation” that your birth place is where they claim it is, and once they blast the media with this “Reputation” that a person is born in Hawaii, then this Hearsay evidence may be admitted as fact.

    Hawaii Revised Statutes
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov
    Hawaii Revised Statutes

    Use the search terms
    certificate of birth
    and
    birth certificate
    because

    certification of birth

    may produce NO results.

    Read Hawaii Revised Statutes about birth certificate and certificate of birth
    HRS section 338-5
    HRS section 338-6
    HRS section 338-17.7
    HRS section 338-17.8
    HRS section 338-18
    HRS section 338-20.5
    HRS section 578-14
    HRS section 578-15
    HRS section 584-23
    Hawaii RULE 803 Hearsay sections (13), (19)

    If you read all of these statutes, you will see that a foreign born person can be issued a Hawaii certificate of birth, but it will state that the person was born in a foreign country, and then the person can apply to have the certificate sealed and a new one issued with altered and amended information based on RULE 803 Hearsay by their family and friends and associates.

    Also, you will see that if a birth is “unattended” that any person claiming to have information about the birth can contact the local agent responsible for issuing birth certificates and have a birth certificate issued, even when there is no parent present. This enables a person giving birth in a foreign country to call a friend or family member in Hawaii and ask them to call the local agent for their neighborhood and state that they have information about a birth that was unattended by any physician or midwife (say you gave birth in a taxi cab in New York city) and that the parents are not available, so under this section, any person claiming to have information can provide birth information and a certificate of birth will be issued.

    So, because there are so many birth certificate and certificate of birth sections, and so many ways to have the original birth certificate sealed and a new birth certificate issued,
    the laws are unconstitutionally broad and over-reaching and unconstitutionally vague.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 3, 2009 at 7:03 pm #

    When reading Hawaiian law, keep in mind the date that the law was passed. If you see [L 1982] at the bottom, that means the law was passed in 1982. Failure to note this point accounts for many of the mistakes in the law filings by the Keyes faction.

  43. avatar
    Veerite January 5, 2009 at 7:18 pm #

    There is only one problem. It doesn’t matter if he was born in Hawaii or not. His father was not a US citizen.
    There is precedence in this case from a case in 1866 United States vs. Rhodes Case No. 16,151. This means that a natural born citizen has to be born in the US and both parents must be US citizens, otherwise the child would have dual citizenship and would be subject to a foreign power.

    United States vs. Rhodes Case No. 16,151

    That all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery,”

    Explanation from John C. Eastman, Ph.D:

    The “subject to the jurisdiction” provision must therefore require something in addition to mere birth on U.S. soil. The language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was derived, provides the key to its meaning. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”[3] As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child’s par-ents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents’ home country was not entitled to claim the birth-right citizenship provided by the 1866 Act.

    Read the article for yourself.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 5, 2009 at 9:55 pm #

    First, you should look more carefully at what Eastman is saying. He is not talking about “natural born citizenship”; he is talking about all citizenship. He is saying that people born in the United States to non-citizen parents should not be citizens. He is not arguing what the law is — we have countless citizens who were born here of non-citizen parents — he is arguing that we should change the law so that people like our president-elect Barack Obama are not citizens at all.

    Eastman’s argument was decisively rejected but he US Supreme Court in the post-14th amendment case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, where the child of two non-citizen Chinese laborers was denied entry to the country, because he was not a citizen. The Supreme Court 6-2 rejected that view, pointing out that the First Congress itself tells us that aliens living in the United States are subject to our jurisdiction:

    By the constitution of the United States, congress was empowered to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.’ In the exercise of this power, congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,’ passed at the second session of the first congress under the constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,’ and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization.’

    Wong goes on to say even more forcefully:

    The chief justice first laid down the general principle: The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source. This consent may be either express or implied. In the latter case, it is less determinate, exposed more to the uncertainties of construction; but, if understood, not less obligatory.’ 7 Cranch, 136.

    For further reading of the actual case law and supporting documents, visit this incredible collection.

  45. avatar
    Hitandrun January 7, 2009 at 5:19 pm #

    Hawaiian Registrar Onaka’s signature stamp on the Obama CnOLB reads in part:

    I CERTIFY THIS IS A TRUE COPY OR
    ABSTRACT OF THE RECORD [...]

    Yet many on this site continue to refer to the document (without confirmation) as clearly a “certified copy”. Is it in fact a “true copy” or merely an “abstract”?

    Curious,
    Hitandrun

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 7, 2009 at 5:45 pm #

    “Certified copy” is the standard terminology in the vital statistics industry and it is the language used by the State of Hawaii on its web site.

    The COLB is more than a “true copy” or a “true abstract” because the registrar has said “I CERTIFY” that it is a “true copy” or a “true abstract”. Therefore the “true copy” or “true abstract” is “certified” by the state registrar as true; hence, a “certified copy”.

  47. avatar
    Hitandrun January 7, 2009 at 5:57 pm #

    Though both are certified, a true abstract to my mind is NOT a true copy.

    Hitandrun

  48. avatar
    laughinghysterically January 7, 2009 at 6:05 pm #

    Hitandrun:

    It is irrelevant whether “to your mind” it is a true copy, the document is legally admissible and sufficient in court proceedings to show proof of birth. That is what matters, whether you like it or not.

  49. avatar
    Hitandrun January 7, 2009 at 6:45 pm #

    Hys,
    I’m not arguing for or against its admissibility in court. Just tryin’ to untwist the language to enable rant-free communication–at least, between laughs. Got it?

    Stay well hys,
    Hitandrun

  50. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 7, 2009 at 8:37 pm #

    It is a copy of some of the information abstracted from the record. The label is really unimportant. The fact is that at some time in the past workers pulled down the bound books of certificates and typed selected fields into a computer system. Later computer programs printed information from the database and some authorized person stuck a stamp on it. That’s how we do birth certificates in this country, or that is how we USED to do it. Now many states are going paperless. All the data fields are typed directly into the computer system and digitally signed. Work is being done to transmit information directly from hospital electronic medical record systems to vital records systems, and electronically sign the record. The vault record is being phased out.

    The vault records (some of which used to be were microfilmed) are now being scanned into imaging systems.

  51. avatar
    Hitandrun January 8, 2009 at 4:22 pm #

    In other words, Doc, the Ministry of Truth has arrived!

    Hitandrun

  52. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 13, 2009 at 11:48 pm #

    Thanks, Jerry for the kind words about Obama Conspiracy Theories in your article. That’s really cool! Y’all hustle over and take a look!

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 24, 2009 at 11:42 pm #

    It’s a copy either way. Say there was a court proceeding and a tape recording of the testimony was made, and a stenographer took down what was said too. Both are true copies, just one is a transcription and the other a recording. If part of the transcript is shown, then it is an abstract. If the court certifies the accuracy of the partial transcription, then it is a certified copy. The real testimony in the case is what was said, not the recording or the transcription. However, for legal purposes, we consider them both accurate.

    The birth certificate is analogous, the recording is like a photocopy and the COLB is like a partial transcription.

  54. avatar
    George Orwell III January 26, 2009 at 6:59 pm #

    [L 1982, c 182, §1]

    The law cited preceding did not exist until its passage in 1982 (the “L 1982‘) , 21 years after Barack Obama’s birth registration on August 8, 1961.

    Hawaii Administrative Rules – Title 11
    See 120 and 123 at the link above for more detail. It appears to have been retroactive to Feb. of 1981 actually.

  55. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 26, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    Thanks for the page. However, it doesn’t matter if the law was retroactive back to 1949; someone in 1961 wouldn’t have known that a retroactive law would be passed decades later and registered a child based on it.

  56. avatar
    JanC January 31, 2009 at 3:05 pm #

    The Department of Hawaiian Homelands requires applicants to provide their original birth certificate and gives the following information on how to obtain it. HOW DID FACTCHECK.ORG, or you for that matter, MISS THIS?

    In order to process your application, DHHL utilizes information that is found only on the original Certificate of Live Birth, which is either black or green. This is a more complete record of your birth than the Certification of Live Birth (a computer-generated printout). Submitting the original Certificate of Live Birth will save you time and money since the computer-generated Certification requires additional verification by DHHL.
    When requesting a certified copy of your birth certificate from the Vital Records Section of DOH, let the clerk know you are requesting it “For DHHL Purposes,” and that you need a copy of the original Certificate of Live Birth and not the computer-generated Certification. If mailing in your request form, please fill in “For DHHL Purposes” in the “Reason for Requesting a Certified Copy” section.


    I assume from this that the key to actually getting the long form is to specifically request it when applying in person or to indicate that in the REASON FOR THIS REQUEST’ box. Obviously for many and possibly most uses, the short form is sufficient and can easily be generated upon demand. The long form requires searching for the original physical document and then creating and certifying a new physical copy of that document.

  57. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2009 at 4:00 pm #

    Why did I miss some text on an application form in PDF format for an obscure Hawaiian program that is irrelevant to Barack Obama? Not sure. The main Hawaii Homelands information page itself doesn’t give instructions on how to get a copy of the long form but it does mention that one is needed (old news).

    The Hawaiian Homelands program is for persons of Hawaiian decent (which Barack Obama is not) for which information on the “long form” is required., presumably because of decent information.

    However, it was always clear that one could get a copy of the long form based on the Hawaii law about certified copies.

  58. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 4:51 pm #

    The only question that Obama was addressing when he ordered the COLB was “where he was born.” The short form clearly addresses that-Hawaii. There was no need to obtain the long form then and there is no need for Obama to produce the long form now.

  59. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion January 31, 2009 at 5:38 pm #

    You DO know that the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands handles programmes for NATIVE HAWAIIANS who can prove at least 51% ancestry from the pre-1750 inhabitants of Hawaii. It has nothing to do with being born in Hawaii unless you’re also of Native Hawaiian ancestry as well.

  60. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    Patrick,

    Are you talking to me? Yes. And, the form is not “required” as the birthers claim but rather “suggested” because it will same them “time and money” due to the need for additional research to prove that they are “native Hawaiian ancestors” to be eligible for the Hawaiian Homelands program.

  61. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2009 at 9:24 pm #

    Who could have imagined all the suspicions that arose based on that simple declarative document?

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy January 31, 2009 at 9:29 pm #

    I think Patrick was talking to JanC.

  63. avatar
    bogus info January 31, 2009 at 9:30 pm #

    Dr. C.,

    If it hadn’t been the BC, they would have found something else.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 1, 2009 at 10:16 pm #

    “This suit [Keyes v, Bowen] , like all of the others that have been filed challenging Obama’s qualifications for the Presidency, is frivolous,” [Obama's lawyer Woocher] said in an email to POLITICO, adding that he is, in fact, working pro bono. “There is absolutely no truth to the stories about the untold millions supposedly being paid to us,” he said.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19450_Page2.html

  65. avatar
    thisoldhippie March 1, 2009 at 10:46 pm #

    Bush sure had a problem providing his military records unredacted, though.

  66. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 1, 2009 at 11:19 pm #

    But reports say his birth certificate is in the Texas State Archives, although I know of no one who has seen it.

  67. avatar
    Jez March 2, 2009 at 11:06 am #

    That is interesting that his BC would be in Texas. Especially if you consider GWB was born in Connecticut.

    Unless it’s just there for “posterity”.

  68. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 2, 2009 at 1:38 pm #

    I presume it is because he was Governor of Texas and it’s part of his papers. If it’s truly there, then it will just be a certified copy like everyone else’s.

    Connecticut? Oh dear. That is a problem.

  69. avatar
    Jez March 2, 2009 at 2:51 pm #

    Yup. Connecticut.

    President Bush was born on July 6, 1946, in New Haven, Connecticut, and grew up in Midland and Houston, Texas.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/GeorgeWBush/

  70. avatar
    Hitandrun March 5, 2009 at 3:51 pm #

    On the ‘Decline and Fall’ front, here cometh Sen Mel Martinez (FL). After all, who needs a Constitution?:

    http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3203

    Didn’t the Founders call it ‘tyranny of the majority’?

    Hitandrun (sub lege)

  71. avatar
    Bob March 5, 2009 at 4:40 pm #

    *yawn*

    Form letter to constituent is front-page news at WND:

    http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90767

  72. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 6, 2009 at 3:07 am #

    This is really OLD news — I ran across Mel Martinez’ letter on the internet months ago…..

  73. avatar
    Red Graham June 12, 2009 at 6:20 pm #

    Even IF Obama was born in Hawaii(he was likely born in Kenya) his mother was not old enough to convey citizenship under law in Hawaii at that time and his birth-father was a part-Arab citizen of Kenya. Hence even if there was US citizenship it would have been a dual-citizenship. Then Obama’s mom divorced her bigamist husband & married an Indonesian Moslem who adopted Barry as his own son and made him a citizen of Indonesia and sent him to be trained as a Moslem under the name Barry Soetoro. That flaky mother of Barry’s then sent young Barry to Hawaii where he was raised to adulthood by her parents. He never changed his name back to Obama, applied to various colleges(whose records are sealed) and in 1981 got a passport to Pakistan under unknown citizenship when Pakistan was under a flightban from the US. Arabs view Obama as a Moslem and will not allow Michelle into any country under Sharia-law unless she wears a burkha. The man Obama is not a US citizen and not legally president.

  74. avatar
    NBC June 12, 2009 at 7:36 pm #

    Even IF Obama was born in Hawaii(he was likely born in Kenya) his mother was not old enough to convey citizenship under law in Hawaii at that time and his birth-father was a part-Arab citizen of Kenya

    Why are you making up this nonsense? You are confusing born outside the US requirements with born on US soil requirements. There is no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya, and there is significant evidence that he wasn’t.

    How does it feel to be so ignorant of facts?

  75. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy June 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm #

    Red Graham says: “Even IF Obama was born in Hawaii(he was likely born in Kenya) his mother was not old enough to convey citizenship under law in Hawaii at that time”

    Well, let me repeat to you what my Senator, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.

    Now I don’t know where you got your ideas, but they are most certainly wrong. (You were aware that Hawaii became a state two years before Obama was born?) Perhaps you should write your own senator.

    The rest of your comments are fantasy, including the “flight ban” to Pakistan. You might just as well be telling us that fairies visit your house and whisper tomorrow’s Dow Jones averages to you.

  76. avatar
    dunstvangeet June 12, 2009 at 10:21 pm #

    Um, Red Graham. Obama was born within the STATE OF HAWAII. Hawaii was admitted as a state in 1959. Obama was born in 1961. That falls under the 14th Amendment’s “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

    Let me ask you what part of that passage don’t you understand?

  77. avatar
    Dan July 9, 2009 at 3:19 am #

    Sen grahm….so I guess that if two Iranian’s
    who were not diplomat’s, can have their child
    born in the u.s., and the child becomes a
    “natural born citizen”…Are you nut’s?

  78. avatar
    Gordon July 9, 2009 at 3:25 am #

    That Red Graham dude is even farther out then the regular quack birthers here.

  79. avatar
    Dan July 9, 2009 at 3:39 am #

    “born to citizen’s (plural)of the u.s.
    is considered “natural born” citizen.
    “born to a foreigner” is considered a
    “naturalized citizen”.
    Native born (on soil)is considered a citizen,
    the Parent’s alligance is what determine’s
    what type.

  80. avatar
    Gordon July 9, 2009 at 3:51 am #

    “He was likely born in Kenya”. That is standard BirtherSpeak every where I see Birthers blog.

  81. avatar
    Gordon July 9, 2009 at 4:07 am #

    Where did you de-vine that piece of information?

  82. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 9, 2009 at 7:42 am #

    Dan, you may be new here, but just ’cause you say so, don’t make it so. If all you have is an unsupported assertion, you might as well not waste your time.

  83. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 9, 2009 at 7:43 am #

    Are you bigoted?

    I consider that someone being excluded from office based on their ethnicity is definitely an un-American idea.

  84. avatar
    Black Lion July 9, 2009 at 9:08 am #

    You notice how these birthers make these claims without any evidence or cite their own versions of the law and try and make you believe that it is the truth. We all know the Constitution does not say that. It does not mention parents. However on numerous sites the birthers will try and get around the law by adding their own language.

  85. avatar
    Dan July 11, 2009 at 6:29 pm #

    No I am not bigoted. I voted for
    Barack, and was not aware that he
    has refused to show any of his legal document’s.
    The Law is the Law.
    We have two types of citizen’s,
    “natural born citizen’s, and “naturalized
    citizen’s”.
    Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” by
    the “stated fact” that his father was a
    British subject and never a u.s. citizen.
    Both “parent’s” must be a u.s. citizen in
    order to be a “natural born citizen”.
    Being “native born” (jus soile) does not
    give “natural born citizen” status”.
    The intent of the many “Lawsuit’s” are to
    get the “original” SEALED birth certificate,
    which are filed and can only be opened by a
    court order. 338-20.5 and a few other’s.

    Fraud
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001028—-000-.html
    (1) except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both, if the offense is—
    (A) the production or transfer of an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document that is or appears to be—
    (i) an identification document or authentication feature issued by or under the authority of the United States; or
    (ii) a birth certificate, or a driver’s license or personal identification card;

    Racketeering (includes 1028)
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001961—-000-.html

    These are very interesting statutes cited at 8 USC 1481.
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1481.html (Indonesia)

    However take a look at (2382 through 2391) click previous and next.

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002382—-000-.html

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002383—-000-.html
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002384—-000-.html
    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002385—-000-.html
    also,
    FYI: 18 U.S.C. 4 imposes a legal obligation to report all Federal Felonies to an officer in the Judicial, Civil or Military authorities of the United States (Federal Government):

    http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/4.html

    (Failure to do so is another Federal Felony!)
    (read’s as follow’s)
    Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    These are just a few that Obama/? and his cronies should be charged with.

    He should be charged with fraud and impersonation as an average
    person breaking the law in any jurisdiction.

    Please see:

    also: http://www.therightsideoflife.com

    http://www.oilforimmigration.org

    http://www.americangrandjury.org

    Plus, when “birth certificate’s” are SEALED, it usually mean’s an adoption
    took place. 338-20 , 20.5 and other’s have “sealed” in them.
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0020.htm

    Anyone subject to conspire to present false
    document’s, or lies can be proscecuted under many statutes.

    What I do not understand is why Obama has
    refused to present any “legal” document’s
    of his identity, unless of course “YOU” can, then I, and most American’s who value
    Our Constitution would let the issue of
    “eligibility” be solved….

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 11, 2009 at 9:19 pm #

    Dan: “No I am not bigoted. I voted for Barack”

    Why in the world would I believe that? The entire birther mythology is based on lies. Why would anyone carrying their baggage be believed by anybody?

    Given that the Governor of Hawaii, and the Director of the State Health Department have said that Obama’s birth certificate is not sealed, where do you get your information, the comic books?

  87. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 11, 2009 at 9:57 pm #

    No I am not bigoted. I voted for
    Barack, and was not aware that he
    has refused to show any of his legal document’s.

    My question to you is why did you vote for someone who you thought was constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency? More likely, you’re lying to us now.

    The Law is the Law.

    Except when the Birthers get a hold of it, and make up laws.

    We have two types of citizen’s,
    “natural born citizen’s, and “naturalized
    citizen’s”.

    Yes, this is true. He’s not a naturalized citizen. A naturalized citizen is one who has had previous citizenship with another country and obtains his citizenship after he was born.

    Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” by the “stated fact” that his father was a British subject and never a u.s. citizen. Both “parent’s” must be a u.s. citizen in order to be a “natural born citizen”.

    That’s false. I point you to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, who declared people born to 2 foreign parents to be citizens by birth (or in otherwise, not naturalized).

    Being “native born” (jus soile) does not give “natural born citizen” status”.
    The intent of the many “Lawsuit’s” are to
    get the “original” SEALED birth certificate,
    which are filed and can only be opened by a
    court order. 338-20.5 and a few other’s.

    You’ve just stated above that there are only 2 types of citizens, “Natural-Born” and “Naturalized”. Now, you directly discount your previous statement by stating that “Native Born” does not equal “Natural-Born”. So, you go directly against your previous comment by suggesting that Natural-Born does not equal Native Born. Therefore you must believe one of two things. Either there is a third type of citizenship (those who are born citizens, but not Natural-Born Citizens). Of course, above in your post, you said that this is impossible, because there are only 2 types of citizenship. Or, you believe that someone who is born within the United States is not a citizen, based upon the fact that his parent (or parents) are not. This is something that is directly contradicted by the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

    So, which is it? Is it something that you’ve already said isn’t true (the third-type of citizenship)? Or is it something that is directly contradicted by the Constitution and the United States Supreme Court.

  88. avatar
    Expelliarmus July 11, 2009 at 11:15 pm #

    Dan wrote:

    The Law is the Law.

    True.

    We have two types of citizen’s,
    “natural born citizen’s, and “naturalized
    citizen’s”.

    True, as per 14th Amendment, US Constitution.

    Obama is NOT a “natural born citizen” by
    the “stated fact” that his father was a
    British subject and never a u.s. citizen.

    FALSE. Under the 14th Amendment, all individuals born in the US are natural born citizens, regardless of parentage. This is specified clearly in the 14th Amendment, and by subsequent Supreme Court decision. (Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v Elg, etc.)

    As noted, “the law is the law”, and the LAW of the land is and has been that a child who is born in the US automatically acquires US citizenship, at birth.

    The other kind of citizenship, “naturalized”, refers to individuals born abroad who acquire citizenship later in life.

    Both “parent’s” must be a u.s. citizen in
    order to be a “natural born citizen”.

    FALSE. (See above).

    The intent of the many “Lawsuit’s” are to
    get the “original” SEALED birth certificate,
    which are filed and can only be opened by a
    court order. 338-20.5 and a few other’s.

    For what purpose? If your issue is one of parentage, how will seeing the original birth certificate change that?

    Obama has produced a copy of the legal certification of birth, issued by the state…. if, as you say, “the law is the law”, then that clearly is all that is required.

    Your problem isn’t that you want adherence to the law; the problem is that you want to change the law after Obama’s already been elected and sworn into office.

  89. avatar
    Bob July 21, 2009 at 10:30 am #

    It is Tinkerbell’s pixie dust, giving conservatives hope that Obama will eventually be impeached and his policies repudiated, if they only believe hard enough.

    Zing!

  90. avatar
    Jamman July 31, 2009 at 6:38 pm #

    You say the statute that allowed a one year old to obtain a Cert of Live Birth didnt exist until 1982. You Thereby exclude the possibility that such a law existed prior to 1982.

    Yet there is Sun Yat Sen’s certifcate of live birth, from before 1982.

    Admitting that Sun’s preceeds statehood, it still would seem that you should prove that no such provision existed in the interim period, because from this evidence: You could get a Cert. of LB before statehood, you could get one after 1982. Why would I assume that for the period that suits you, it was not possible?

  91. avatar
    dunstvangeet July 31, 2009 at 6:59 pm #

    No, we’re stating a couple of things.

    1. The statute that allowed a foreign birth to be registered in Hawaii did not occur until 1982.

    2. These Birth Certificates under this law would clearly be marked as foreign due to their birth place not being a place in the United States.

    3. Barack Obama doesn’t have one of these certificates.

    4. Sun Yat Sen’s birth was fraudently registered in 1911. This has no bearing on the veracity of Obama’s birth in 1961.

  92. avatar
    Bob July 31, 2009 at 7:11 pm #

    Admitting that Sun’s preceeds statehood, it still would seem that you should prove that no such provision existed in the interim period

    If you want to argue that law in effect in 1961 allowed for such certificates, it is up to you to do your homework and cite that law.

  93. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy July 31, 2009 at 7:40 pm #

    The issue of Sun Yat-Sen’s Certificate of Hawaiian birth is discussed on this blog in the article:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/hawaiian-birth-certificate-its-a-fake/

    That certificate was obtained by fraud though sworn affidavits of two persons, and Sun’s own false statement. This incident only points out the already-known fact that there is always some possibility of fraud, especially when the birth report comes long after. See the DHHS Inspector General Report.

  94. avatar
    Christopher Cook August 3, 2009 at 12:34 pm #

    Remember, the Constitution says “A Natural born or a Citizen.

  95. avatar
    hitler August 6, 2009 at 8:45 am #

    you really are ignorant Wow is this how stpid people are?The mans guilty of having duel citizenship he himself admitted to having the duel citizenship so if you can’t keep up with the program don’t make stpid comments cause your a moron. Unless your a completely clueless about our constitution it states you can NOT have a duel CITIZENSHIP and be president heredo you need someone to speak english for you to interpret what I just said maybe some sign language so you know what I said that is the LAW here.

  96. avatar
    kimba August 6, 2009 at 9:03 am #

    Please point us to where the Constitution says this. Here is a head start for you to narrow down a place for you to start looking:
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

  97. avatar
    Black Lion August 6, 2009 at 9:08 am #

    You might want to know that the US Constitution does not mention dual citizenship at all. Actually only two types of citizenship is mentioned in the Constitution. Native, being born on the soil of the US, and naturalized or gaining US citizenship after being born in another country. So you may want to check your facts. It is funny how the birthers try and rewrite the Constitution in order to fit their theories.

  98. avatar
    kimba August 6, 2009 at 9:13 am #

    That’s why I gave him the link to the actual Constitution so he can have a read. It says something about these people that they read something somewhere and don’t look it up themselves. They have the information of the world at the end of their fingertips but they were never taught to look things up. And then they have the huevos to come to a site and spew their misinformation as if We are the ignorant ones. Birthers are a concrete example of the failure of the schools system in America, especially the South.

  99. avatar
    Bob August 6, 2009 at 10:29 am #

    Also, it is ironic that you can call other people ignorant, and not know the difference between “dual” and “duel.”

    On person note: How’s hell treating you, hitler?

  100. avatar
    AXJ September 4, 2009 at 3:37 am #

    Why would a Hawaiian Government Office issue such a stupid document?

  101. avatar
    Carol September 21, 2009 at 1:10 am #

    Offering to “speak English” for you here: That would be “stUpid” “duAl” “you’re” [a moron/completely clueless] plus various punctuation signs that are maybe missing from your keyboard, along with the caps key-? (Normally I hesitate to poke at those who appear semi-illiterate, but when they flat out ask for it…)

  102. avatar
    Lisa February 9, 2010 at 6:57 am #

    Oh Please!
    Nobody cares where PRESIDENT Barack Hussien Obama was born to be quite honest! All these allegations need to stop! for goodness sake, there is nothing anyone can really do about it now anyway, so lets just leave it! right? thanks! I mean honestly youve sot these statements, explanations whatever you wanna call them, but what did you reall ythink the outcome of this was going to be?

    NOTHING! Nothings being done about it, Nothings going to get done about it! This world is full of lies! its run by LIES! C’MON look at Stupid LIAR George Bush!!

    THEY SAY- Money makes the world go round!
    I SAY- Lies make the world go round!

    some people just cant handle the TRUTH!
    GET IT?

  103. avatar
    misha February 9, 2010 at 9:02 am #

    @Lisa: Actually, I think it is exotic that we have a president born on Krypton, and raised on Tralfamadore. The Inter-Galactic Federation is truly impressed with our progress.

    Just think, we went from someone borderline to Sotero Obama.