Main Menu

When is a Certification a Certificate?

How many times have you seen on the Internet a statement about Barack Obama’s birth certificate:

A Certification is not a Certificate

Besides being silly on the face of it, it’s also false if you just look at the document.

Click to enlarge, and look closely at the top AND the bottom.

Certification AND Certificate

Certification AND Certificate

49 Responses to When is a Certification a Certificate?

  1. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 12, 2009 at 2:33 am #

    Also, please note the part on the upper right that says “Certificate No.”

    I think I posted this before — I think from a linguistic standpoint, the “certificate” is the piece of paper; the “certification” is th paper’s function.

  2. avatar
    Heavy March 12, 2009 at 10:39 am #

    Check out clingingtomygunsandreligion.com

    You people are fools of the highest order and are giving aid and comfort to the enemy…TREASON!

  3. avatar
    NBC March 12, 2009 at 11:16 am #

    You’re funny… Surely I am not falling for your attempts to make Birthers look sillier than they already are.

  4. avatar
    Heavy March 12, 2009 at 11:29 am #

    I may amuse you but, rest assured, your acts of treason are very serious.

    Justice WILL be sreved.

  5. avatar
    richCares March 12, 2009 at 11:55 am #

    my daughter was born 1965 in Honolulu, her birth certificate exactly like Obama’s. When I tried to get “long form or vault copy” Hawaii responded with “We issue only computer-generated certificates of birth. We no longer issue a long form copy.”

    So what Obama posted is all that that send. You call and query Hawaii on this.

    “Information on issuance of certified copies of vital records, Apostilles, amendment of vital records, amended birth certificates (for adopted persons, etc.), and late registration may also be obtained via the telephone system, any day or any time, by calling (808) 586-4533.”

    Birthers don’t want to destroy the “show me the long form” assinine comments, so they won’t call.

  6. avatar
    Bob March 12, 2009 at 12:01 pm #

    Will dessert also be served?

  7. avatar
    Heavy March 12, 2009 at 12:03 pm #

    You bet, Bobby! Can I take your reservation?

  8. avatar
    Heavy March 12, 2009 at 12:11 pm #

    One thing that suppoters of THE ONE fail to understand is that WE do not have to prove he is not elligible. HE has to prove that he is. He has not, therefore he is NOT!

  9. avatar
    Bob March 12, 2009 at 12:36 pm #

    Sorry; the correct answer was:

    “Yes; JUST desserts!!!”

    Thanks for playing.

  10. avatar
    Bob March 12, 2009 at 12:37 pm #

    HE has to prove that he is.

    What legal authority supports this proposition?

  11. avatar
    myson March 12, 2009 at 1:50 pm #

    H, since he has ALREADY proved to the satisfaction of all that voted for him, the Electors & ALL of congress, it is safe to assure you that the onus is now on you the ‘birthers’ to prove & convince congress that they were wrong.
    It cant be achieved by posting insane comment to his supporters but with HARD & persuasive evidence which obviously your side doesnt have otherwise it would have been released by now.
    So keep dreaming !

  12. avatar
    Heavy March 12, 2009 at 2:17 pm #

    Actually, NOTHING has been proven only assumed.

    “My side” does not need evidence and certainly has no interest in persuading “Your side” or anyone else. We want the of the land to be enforced.

    There’s a storm blowing in.

  13. avatar
    Hitandrun March 12, 2009 at 2:55 pm #

    Doc,
    A ‘Certification of Live Birth’ is NOT a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. To equate the two is “silly on the face of it” and “false”. Got it?

    Hitandrun

  14. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 12, 2009 at 4:30 pm #

    “My side” does not need evidence

    Well, that’s a quote worth framing.

  15. avatar
    Patrick McKinnion March 12, 2009 at 4:43 pm #

    Funny, Burden of proof is always on the accuser, rather than the accused.

    Just like innocent until proven guilty in a court of law is still the law of the land

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2009 at 5:50 pm #

    My religion is incompatible with gun ownership.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2009 at 5:54 pm #

    By that twisted logic, we have never had an eligible president.

  18. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2009 at 6:01 pm #

    So how come the piece of paper says “THIS CERTIFICATE” on the bottom of it? Please explain.

  19. avatar
    Hitandrun March 12, 2009 at 6:33 pm #

    Doc,
    I persist in believing this is innocent miscommunication and not deliberate misleading conflation of the two (small ‘c’) certificates. Strange…

    Regards,
    Hitandrun

  20. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 12, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

    All legal authority goes the other way. There is is a presumption in favor of eligibility of candidates and elected officials, and courts are required to resolve doubts and ambiguities in favor of eligibility. See 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public Officers and Employees § 53 (1997)

  21. avatar
    Bob March 12, 2009 at 7:30 pm #

    I know. But weren’t you kinda curious as to what Senor Heavy might have to say?

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 12, 2009 at 8:42 pm #

    In the United States computer-printed abstract certified copies of a birth registration are called “birth certificates”. Some of them are labeled “Certificate of Birth” (Indiana), some say “Certificate of Live Birth” (many), and some say “Certification of Live Birth” (Hawaii). They all perform the same function and they are all birth certificates. The label on the document is irrelevant to what the state is saying. In all cases, the state is certifying that the facts about the birth of the named individual on the form are true.

    The difference in the words “certificate” and “certification” are merely individual state preferences of words to describe the same thing. The thing Hawaii calls a Certification, Indiana calls a Certificate. The choice of words makes no difference in what the document represents.

    If there is a distinction to be made, it is between a photocopy of a hospital registration, or a laser-printed transcription of a hospital registration. c There are differences in content between the two forms, but there is no difference in the nature of the state’s certification of the two documents and that they are both “birth certificates”. And the meaning of the words certificate and certification do not hint at which is which. The photocopy could just as well have been called a “Certfication” and the abstract laser form a “Certificate”.

    The primary reason I insist on being precise on this point is that many birthers say that a “certificate” asserts birth in the state, while a “certification” does not; and this is completely false. If any certified document from Hawaii ways “Location of birth: Hawaii”, then by Jove, they are saying that the named person was born in Hawaii. Certificate, Certification or Verification in Lieu of a Certified copy. They all say the same thing, and the following statement by Mr. Apuzzo in Kercnher v. Obama is rubbish:

    36. Under Hawaiian law, a computer-generated Certification of Live Birth (COLB) is only prima facie evidence of a birth event and is not a Certificate of Live Birth (Birth Certificate).

    It is, by any normal usage precisely a “birth certificate”.

  23. avatar
    A. Kibitzer March 12, 2009 at 9:04 pm #

    “HE has to prove that he is.”

    Why?

    It would appear that he is residing in the White House, and that the entire rest of the US government considers him to have been elected president.

  24. avatar
    Ian Gould March 12, 2009 at 10:41 pm #

    “I may amuse you but, rest assured, your acts of treason are very serious.

    Justice WILL be sreved.’

    Tell you what, round up as many people who agree with you as possible, pick a day, go to Washington; take your guns and go en masse to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; tell the guards on duty that you’re there to arrest President Obama.

    See what happens.

  25. avatar
    myson March 13, 2009 at 3:55 am #

    Thank you for finally admitting that evidence isnt an issue for your side, i assume all that is needed is hatred & lies !!!
    I can now see how you intend to ‘get’ obama out of the WH !!!

  26. avatar
    Heavy March 13, 2009 at 9:37 am #

    Yes, because global warming is your religion and Al Gore is the high priest and I do mean HIGH!

  27. avatar
    Heavy March 13, 2009 at 9:40 am #

    You’ve told this tale before. It has no bearing. What about his college records. Or would that be a bother to too many people.

    You sick people are on the wrong side of this issue. Instead of supprting your country, you support terrorists.

    Some sins are unforgiveable.

  28. avatar
    Heavy March 13, 2009 at 9:44 am #

    No eveidence is needed because there is no bureden of proof. All we are doing is asking questions. There are no accusations, just questions.

    Where was he born?

    Was he EVER a citizen of another country?

    How was his education paid for?

    These questions have been asked time and time again, yet they have NEVER been answered.

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2009 at 9:48 am #

    I went to Peru and saw the glaciers retreating myself.

  30. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2009 at 9:50 am #

    “Some sins are unforgiveable.”

    I forgive you, Heavy.

  31. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2009 at 9:51 am #

    1. Honolulu
    2. No
    3. Student loans.

  32. avatar
    Heavy March 13, 2009 at 10:09 am #

    Good answers! Now, can we hear those same answers from THE ONE himself?

  33. avatar
    nbc March 13, 2009 at 10:17 am #

    Why should Obama answer questions he has himself already answered?

  34. avatar
    Heavy March 13, 2009 at 10:30 am #

    There you go making excuses again. Do you know how utterly juvenile you sound?

    This guy is a phony through and through, yet you defend him to the last. How sad for you and your ilk, doc. Worst yet, look what you have done to this country with your warped logic and Bush Derangement Syndrome. No matter how much harm your messiah inflicts upon America, GWB will not feel a thing. Get it?

  35. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2009 at 10:43 am #

    Bush is long forgotten. I think you have the right idea, just with the wrong players:

    http://www.intoon.com/index.cfm#67614

  36. avatar
    nbc March 13, 2009 at 10:45 am #

    Do you know how utterly juvenile you sound?

    now that is irony Mr Insult, truly fascinating…

  37. avatar
    Heavy March 13, 2009 at 11:00 am #

    Mr insult? Really? What insults?

  38. avatar
    Heavy March 13, 2009 at 11:38 am #

    Can’t wait to see what’s in your mailbox, doc! This one will be good. But wait, some questions don’t deserve answers, RIGHT DOC!

  39. avatar
    Hitandrun March 14, 2009 at 2:58 pm #

    Thank you, Doc.
    I’ll spin the broken record one last time (at least on this thread).

    In the specific Hawaiian case of Baby Obama, the current abstracted Certification of Live Birth is NOT the 1961 formal Hawaiian hospital-generated Certificate of Live Birth, from which the former may be derived. They therefore in no way bear equal probative weight. These are to me banal and obvious points. Knee-jerk Obots and their media claques often seek to confuse the issue by conflating the two. Mr Apuzzo in the Kerchner case at least takes care in distinguishing the two certificates. That’s all.

    Hitandrun

  40. avatar
    Ian Gould March 14, 2009 at 5:33 pm #

    “In the specific Hawaiian case of Baby Obama, the current abstracted Certification of Live Birth is NOT the 1961 formal Hawaiian hospital-generated Certificate of Live Birth, from which the former may be derived. They therefore in no way bear equal probative weight. These are to me banal and obvious points.”

    The State of Hawaii disagrees.

    Therefore by virtue of the Full Faith and Favor clause of the US constitution the the US government and the Supreme Court disagree.

    Pause for a second and consider whether that makes more sense than “The Supreme Court clerks hid Orly’s brief from the Justices.”

  41. avatar
    NBC March 14, 2009 at 6:26 pm #

    They therefore in no way bear equal probative weight.

    Again you are ill informed as to Hawaiian law.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 14, 2009 at 7:24 pm #

    Just as some may conflate the two, others may make unwarranted disparaging claims about the COLB.

    Hawaiian law
    says: “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.”

    Obviously there are pieces of information (unrelated to place and date of birth) that are not on the COLB and are on the other. Probative? Not in my opinion.

  43. avatar
    Hitandrun March 15, 2009 at 3:55 pm #

    Doc, Ian Gould, NBC,
    Thank you, but nothing in your replies persuades me to change a single word of my post. My answer stands.

    Hitandrun

  44. avatar
    Heavy March 16, 2009 at 8:58 am #

    It’s no use, H & R. They just keep reusing the same old garbage. It os obvious to everyone that the COLB presented br their messiah’s people is, if not an outright fraud, questionable on EVERY level.

  45. avatar
    NBC March 16, 2009 at 11:24 am #

    Let’s explore this

    Comparison between Obama’s COLB and known 2007 COLB Pass

    Analysis of Obama COLB which shows: Serial Number, raised seal, folds and stamp <Pass

    Questionable on every level seems more ‘wishful thinking’

    Cheers mate. Or should it be ‘check mate’ 🙂

  46. avatar
    Heavy March 25, 2009 at 2:36 pm #

    Anyone aware of the fact that the Hawaiian Home Lands Dept. (DHHL) web site states that it will NOT accept a CERTIFCATION of live birth, but rather you need to produce your CERTIFICATE of live birth?

    Hmmm… The walls are closing in.

  47. avatar
    thisoldhippie March 25, 2009 at 2:44 pm #

    I heard that this has been changed but that the website still states they won’t accept it. Apparently you can call the Home Lands Dept. and they will verify that that rule has been changed. I can’t verify it myself, as I have not called. Just passing info.

  48. avatar
    Heavy March 25, 2009 at 3:02 pm #

    Didn’t hear that. Thanks.

  49. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 25, 2009 at 4:56 pm #

    Yes, this is discussed in my article: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/kerchner-v-obama-and-the-whole-country/