Main Menu

Doc C’s birth certificate

I for one have never been hesitant to say in which state I was born. I was born in Alabama. In 1995 I needed a passport and ordered birth certificates for that purpose. Alabama wasn’t “computerized” in 1995, so they photocopied the record onto security paper, applied a stamp and a seal, and that was it. The result is quite similar to what we see from Hawaii before they went paperless in 2001.

What is interesting about my certificate is that I ordered 3 of them, and they are not all quite alike. So here is the certificate, and I will walk you through a few things including the small difference.

Doctor Conspiracy's Birth Certificate (click full size)

First, can you see the raised seal of the State of Alabama? The certificate is folded twice; can you find the folds? I know where the seal and folds are, but I can’t see them in the scan. (You are invited to remember similar objections to Obama’s COLB.)ย  Block 17, the informant, was, as is almost always the case, the mother. While you can’t see this because I blanked it out, my father’s name is misspelled. Mistakes on birth certificates happen; it’s no big deal. My certificate has a block 19: “Date Rec’d by Local Reg”. The unlabeled deletion (left side across from Birth No.) is the last name of the attending physician.

The important thing, and the reason I wrote this article is the difference between this certificate, and my other more “normal” Alabama birth certificates, the text partially cut off at the bottom (and fully cut off on other copies). The text says “Following Section will not be … FOR MEDICAL AND HEALTH USE ONLY” (it’s easier to read on the original). You see, my birth certificate looks like what folks call a “long form”, but it and all others like it are not really the whole hospital certificate, just a portion of it. There is a large section below that was photographically cropped before printing by the state. I hate to break this to you birthers, but YOU ALL HAVE SHORT FORMS! Muahahahahahaaaa! ๐Ÿ‘ฟ

71 Responses to Doc C’s birth certificate

  1. avatar
    Tomtech May 1, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    I have posted my “Certification of Report of Birth of a United States Citizen” here before. You will note there is very little of the information the birthers insist on seeing.

  2. avatar
    Tomtech May 1, 2010 at 11:08 pm #

    Here is a direct link.

  3. avatar
    Kathryn N May 1, 2010 at 11:19 pm #

    My birth certificate says “COPY OF A RECORD OF LIVE BIRTH” on it. It doesn’t give any of the particulars of a hospital birth certificate, such as time of birth, or the name of the hospital. It does give the name of the attending physician, not that it would help in identification, since the doctor is probably dead by now.
    I guess my parents could have lied and filed a false birth report. Maybe I’m really Kenyan?

  4. avatar
    richCares May 1, 2010 at 11:36 pm #

    my daughters both have Hawaiian COLB’s, as for me I was born at home from immigrant parents and did not have a birth certificate. I was able to use my Catholic Baptism certificate for most things including entering the US Marines. While in college U. of Hawaii I had an opportunity for a study trip to Korea but couldn’t go as I could not get a passport. I had to send claims back to Chicago and jump many hoops to get a delayed BC. It took 8 months. The critical witness was a 90 year old priest that baptized me. I needed notarized statements from all my living relatives as well. I finally got a delayed BC and now have a passport but I missed that Korean opportunity which was given to me by the Korean consulate in Hawaii as I was the tutor to the consulate children in Hawaii (one of the jobs that paid for my college) I married a Japanese foreign exchange student in 1964, had 2 daughters one a noted architect**, one a doctor, my wife just applied for citizenship last week (she’s 69 yrs old)

    **a noted architect, here’s link to her house which she designed on a napkin while being married in Spain: http://architectsmagnus.com/casamax/index.html

  5. avatar
    Scott Brown May 2, 2010 at 1:04 am #

    Yes, we all have short-forms

    AND

    we all have long-forms!

    EVEN OBAMA
    Muahahahahahaaaa!

  6. avatar
    richCares May 2, 2010 at 1:07 am #

    sure, that’s why Hawaii says:
    “…State Department of Health (DOH) no longer issues Certificates of Live Birth. When a request is made for a copy of a birth certificate, the DOH issues a Certification of Live Birth.(COLB)”
    want a link?

  7. avatar
    richCares May 2, 2010 at 1:19 am #

    May 1 story in Honolulu Sar Bulletin says:
    No, you can’t obtain a “certificate of live birth” anymore.

    view here: http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html

  8. avatar
    The Sheriff's A Ni- May 2, 2010 at 1:47 am #

    And the short form was valid enough to make Obama the legal and duly sworn President of our great nation. Even as we speak, he’s still Presidentin’.

    Meanwhile, how’s it like to use the name of the new Lincoln Chaffee? I’ll bet Senator Votes With Dems is all the rage at the Birther rallies these days.

  9. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 3:10 am #

    My children were not born in Hawaii and were issued COLB’s. (my last child was born in 2005) I lost my birth certificate last year and was given a COLB as a replacement. I would assume that all of the States have gone to this form when generating certificates. My first query is why are there are so many more questions on the application for a birth certificate if they are simply not relevant for any official reason? How could one get the information on one’s family in the future if there will never be any long forms generated upon request? Where does all of that information go? How would one go about getting it?

    My next question is for Dr. Conspiracy. Have you ever seen confirmation that the COLB released electronically by the Obama campaign was in fact issued by the Hawaii DoH? When Phil was still running The Right Side of Life, he requested an answer as to whether there was a receipt for the transaction and was told that the question could not be answered because of privacy issues. It seems to me that the privacy issue was waived in that regard by virtue of publishing a COLB purporting to be one issued from the DoH and further when an official statement was made that Obama was born in Honolulu. If that transactional question could not be answered either affirmatively or negatively under the constraints of the law, it seems that no official confirmation of birthplace could have been given because of the same constraints. Thank you in advance.

  10. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 3:16 am #

    Just for further clarification, from what I recall in filling out the forms for my children, there were only a few questions at the end of the application that were strictly medical, as in did I smoke or use alcohol during pregnancy.

  11. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 2, 2010 at 4:09 am #

    Just to add some information about adoptee’s birth certificates: I was born in Michigan on March 3, 1969 and I have a ‘Certificate of Birth’ which was ‘filed on’* March 12, 1969 with a date of August 12, 1970 stamped on the official seal. It lists my adoptive parents as my mother and father and has no information about my birth beyond the time, the county and the township I was born in. Presumably there is a certificate on file with my birth mother’s name on it, but I have no right to see it.

    *The ‘filed on’ field is pre-printed on the form and the date hand-written.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 9:23 am #

    charo: My first query is why are there are so many more questions on the application for a birth certificate if they are simply not relevant for any official reason?

    The information is used for state and federal statistical purposes, for example such information allows a study on the correlation of smoking and low birth weight. All states report all this information (less personally identifying information) to the National Center for Health Statistics.

    charo: Have you ever seen confirmation that the COLB released electronically by the Obama campaign was in fact issued by the Hawaii DoH?

    The State of Hawaii has confirmed that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but they have never confirmed the certified copy Obama posted on the Internet. State spokesperson Janice Okubo, commenting on Obama’s COLB, said “it looks just like mine”, which I take as confirmation that it is of the same form as other birth certificates. However, the State is only competent to confirm their own records, not a document on the Internet. There are, however, no grounds I know of to doubt the authenticity of the COLB. I mean, if Obama is born in Hawaii, why would he fake a birth certificate when he could get a real one for $10? We already know who his mother and father were, and the date of birth from contemporary newspaper records. The mother’s address matches a contemporary city directory. What’s left to fake?

  13. avatar
    Black Lion May 2, 2010 at 10:44 am #

    The liar Scott Brown speaks again…But says nothing as usual…

  14. avatar
    richCares May 2, 2010 at 11:02 am #

    “…he’s still Presidentin’.”
    Presidenting while black is against the birther constitution, don’t yah know.

  15. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 11:08 am #

    Thank you for responding. The information about smoking and pregnancy is not to which I was referring. That is clearly medical information. I don’t recall every question I had to answer on the application, but I know it was more than what is provided on a COLB and more than smoking and alcohol drug/use.

    One of my points is that if only COLB’s are going to be generated and long forms will not be issued to family members even upon request, no one in the future will be able to know any information beyond the brief facts supplied on the COLB, unless they have access to the information independently. Let’s say one of my grandchildren wants to know the name of my attending physician for whatever reason. Vital statistics will not be an avenue to get information?

    “The State of Hawaii has confirmed that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but they have never confirmed the certified copy Obama posted on the Internet.”

    Your answer to the above adds to my question as to why the confirmation has not been made regarding a receipt. There doesn’t seem to be a logical reason not to. Privacy has already been violated by disclosing information (the birth place) so why not answer the simple question of whether there a receipt confirming that a request was made, and granted, for the COLB? What privacy right is violated by merely confirming what has publicly been acknowledged? Phil from TRSoL made his request several months ago, before the proposed legislation barring requests from the DoH. It wasn’t a matter of harassment. I think it is a question that an unbiased journalist should have asked.

    “However, the State is only competent to confirm their own records, not a document on the Internet.” Because Phil’s question regarding a receipt would not be answered for privacy reasons, then the State is not allowed to publicly confirm what is in their records according to this very reasoning. Because it did so, then, IMO, opens a door to answering Phil’s request.

    I will check back sometime later for your response.

  16. avatar
    richCares May 2, 2010 at 11:46 am #

    at last nights White House Correspondents Association dinner Obama referred to his popularity in the country of his birth. That was neat, he is F****ing with the birther’s minds, was really funny and all laughed heartily. Poor clueless birthers!

  17. avatar
    Whatever4 May 2, 2010 at 11:49 am #

    No privacy was violated by either of Dr. Fukino’s official statements. The birth index is public. The birth index says that a birth record exists for:

    Birth Index
    Obama II, Barack Hussein
    Male

    The index records are:

    the names and sex of all births, deaths and marriages that occurred in the state.

    So by saying that she examined the records verifying Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and he is a natural born citizen, nothing outside the index needed to be revealed.

    A receipt would mean that Obama authorized a transaction, which isn’t part of the public record.

  18. avatar
    racosta May 2, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    “Phil from TRSoL”
    Hey, don’t make us laugh, Phil from RSOL, isn’t that site gone after birthers took it over. If you want credibility don’t quote idiot sites.

  19. avatar
    Scientist May 2, 2010 at 12:47 pm #

    Let’s say one of my grandchildren wants to know the name of my attending physician for whatever reason. Vital statistics will not be an avenue to get information?

    Your grandchild can always see their own personal file. However, access to your grandchild’s records will be denied to third parties, just as for the President’s.

    As far as what appears on the issued BC, the goal is to have only essential information. Your driver’s license doesn’t show your score on the written exam and road test, though those exist somewhere in DMV’s files.

  20. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    The specific legislation as to was is available varies from state to state.

  21. avatar
    G May 2, 2010 at 1:28 pm #

    Hey look, the known lying troll Scott Brown returns, again with nothing of value to add. What state were you born in again Scott? Go crawl back under your rock, troll. You are insincere and have nothing to add except your own pathetic petty hate.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 1:37 pm #

    charo: I don’t recall every question I had to answer on the application, but I know it was more than what is provided on a COLB and more than smoking and alcohol drug/use.

    If I knew in which state the birth occurred, I might be able to be more specific. I looked at one state and noted that a birth record has 243 items of information (names having separate parts for first, middle, etc.), most of which was medical in nature and would come from the medical chart.

    For privacy reasons (including requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) medical parts of the record are simply not going to be available when you ask for your birth certificate. Depending on the state and the state laws, you may be able to receive other information. If memory serves me right, you can get a very large set of information in Indiana if you specially request it. Hawaii, at least according to their public statements, will only print a COLB. You may be able to get printed copies of information on a piece of paper, but it wouldn’t be a certified copy on security paper, and it wouldn’t be a “birth certificate.” Let me emphasize that these things vary by state. If you don’t agree with the policy in your state, petition your state legislature for a change.

    A handful of states are “open record” states, and there you can ask for copies of birth certificate information for strangers, although again, not a standard certified copy.

    Here are some items which are not protected by medical privacy (I don’t think) that are found in birth records, but not printed on certificates in some states:

    Attendant Information (name, license number, type–MD, midwife)
    Birth Facility (name, address)
    Mother’s current last name (as distinct from Maiden name)
    Mother and Father date of birth, age
    Mother’s current residence address and phone number
    Mother’s mailing address
    Mother/Father birthplace — city, state, county, country
    Informant name (usually the mother)
    Mother’s marital status
    Mother/Father Race
    Paternity (if mother/father not married, does the father acknowledge parentage)
    Mother/Father Hispanic origin
    Mother/Father years of education
    Was mother transferred to another facility, which?
    Mother/Father Social Security number
    Request Social Security number from SSA for newborn
    Child Social Security number
    Local/state/county registrar name and dates
    Is the child deceased?

  23. avatar
    Bob Ross May 2, 2010 at 1:42 pm #

    I can’t stand Leno they should have gotten Conan Obrien instead

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 1:53 pm #

    charo: … why the confirmation has not been made regarding a receipt. There doesn’t seem to be a logical reason not to. Privacy has already been violated by disclosing information (the birth place) so why not answer the simple question of whether there a receipt confirming that a request was made, and granted, for the COLB?

    Recall that when Obama was born, the state health department sent a notice to the Hawaii Newspaper Agency that distributed the information to local newspapers. By law this information is made public. What Dr. Fukino said went no farther than the public release of information made back in August of 1961 and what she is allowed by law to do.

    Think about it for a moment. Would you want your next door neighbor to be able to get copies of receipts for you ordering a birth certificate? What business is it of theirs? Would you want a professional burglar to order copies of ALL adult birth certificate requests in the state, so he can come up with a short list of people who might be ordering passports and will be out of town for an extended period of time? States have policies for a reason, and they don’t just throw the policy or law out the window just because come conspiracy theorist wants to dig into every minute detail of Barack Obama’s life in order to come up with some dirt.

    charo: I think it [birth certificate order receipt] is a question that an unbiased journalist should have asked.

    Barack Obama’s birth location has been multiply proved beyond any reasonable doubt. An “unbiased journalist” investigates based on facts or plausible scenarios, not based on other people’s disproven delusions.

  25. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 2:13 pm #

    Scientist: Your grandchild can always see their own personal file

    Keep in mind that your “own personal file” is just as much your mother’s personal file as well as it is your own. For this reason, medical information is not generally available to anyone except the custodian of the records, and in response to a subpoena. I believe that the application of HIPAA to deceased persons is still an undecided question.

    In a handful of states, the non-medical portion of vital records is public information, available to anyone. In a 1997 meeting of the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, it was stated that “States vary widely, with 18 “open record” states imposing virtually no restrictions on access to birth and death records. Some open record states restrict access to the medical and health information” (1997 was before the HIPAA privacy rule was written). The number of open record states was reported at 12 in a 2007 NAPHSIS survey.

    In the 2006 meeting Dr. Charlie Rothwell said: “In fact as I was mentioning about publications, even data files, some of the states really release information that they shouldn’t, in my opinion, shouldn’t be releasing. They’re allowed to by their state law but their state law probably is too loose, way too loose, and Steve was talking about open record states and not, it’s probably not in the best interest of their citizens in what there are and we’re not providing that leadership to say you know, these are the things that could be happening under this type of arrangement that you have. “

  26. avatar
    Kathryn N May 2, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    It must have been embarrassing for Leno as a professional comedian that the president was so much funnier than him.

  27. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 2, 2010 at 4:04 pm #

    REPLY TO:

    Let’s say one of my grandchildren wants to know the name of my attending physician for whatever reason. Vital statistics will not be an avenue to get information?

    If anyone has a GOOD reason to find out some information contained in confidential records, they can get a court order for the release of such information, under seal if necessary. Of course they need to have standing and a valid claim before the court.

    I can’t think of any particular reason any individual would need to know the names of the attendants at their grandparent’s birth, however. Idle curiosity isn’t good enough.

    I’d note that many people have personal medical or family history information that they really don’t want their children or grandchildren to know.

  28. avatar
    richsadz@q.com May 2, 2010 at 4:07 pm #

    just visited RSOL (need a brain wash now)
    they are touting P&E’s Hawaian hassles, headline states “#eligibility Bombshell: Hawaii Conspiracy Allegations on Email Records Request”, plus some commenters are complaining that Dr. C and Politijab edit comments. Wow dumb is really dumb yet charo quotes these idiots. The stuff at RSOL is not even good enough to be called crap and Post & Fail is below that.

    I am not going back there, can someone go there and explain the meaning of “eligibility Bombshell” to Phil.

  29. avatar
    Expelliarmus May 2, 2010 at 4:17 pm #

    REPLY TO:

    Have you ever seen confirmation that the COLB released electronically by the Obama campaign was in fact issued by the Hawaii DoH?

    What would the relevance be? The Hawaii DoH confirmed in public statements that they have the original records of Obama’s birth on file, and that such record confirms that he was born in Hawaii. See http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    The COLB is merely a secondary, written record that confirms the same underlying fact — that Obama was born in Hawaii. It is not even a unique document — if a person ordered their own birth certificate from the state where they were born once every three years, just for the heck of it — over the years they would end up with an assortment of documents printed on different types of paper, with somewhat differing information and placement of the information, with somewhat different placement and appearance of an official seal, with different dates of issuance and signatures of issuing officers.

    When Obama posted a COLB on line, all that was posted — at best — was a written document from the DOH confirming that they had original records of Obama’s birth on file, and that he was born in Hawaii. Now that the SAME information can be downloaded from the DOH web site, there is no need for anyone to rely on the secondary information contained in a COLB.

  30. avatar
    Bob Ross May 2, 2010 at 6:06 pm #

    Yeah it was bad. Leno got quiet laughs if none at all. Leno would approach a subject make one joke then jump to another there was no coherence to his delivery. It was funny though when Obama clowned on Jay

  31. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 6:48 pm #

    It doesn’t matter who made the request for a receipt. The request was made and that was the point of the discussion. Being an expert on Obama conspiracies, I have no doubt that Doc Conspiracy knows all about TRSoL and managed to get the point.

  32. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 6:59 pm #

    Have you ever seen confirmation that the COLB released electronically by the Obama campaign was in fact issued by the Hawaii DoH?

    What would the relevance be? The Hawaii DoH confirmed in public statements that they have the original records of Obama’s birth on file, and that such record confirms that he was born in Hawaii.

    @@@ The DoH isn’t supposed to confirm or deny anything based upon the personal record. Because it did so, answering whether there was a transaction should also be acceptable and actually gives away no personal information at all.

  33. avatar
    BatGuano May 2, 2010 at 7:02 pm #

    It doesn’t matter who made the request for a receipt.The request was made and that was the point of the discussion

    then show us ANY COLB or similar birth certificate from any state from any similar request.

  34. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 7:19 pm #

    This response is to the comment below: (I can’t see how to reply there)

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    Fukino did not say that she looked at the index in her statement but the original vital records. Are you saying that Fukino is allowed to disclose whether or not someone is a citizen or not based upon an examination of individual vital records? What is done in one case should be allowed in any other. Precedent. Think outside of the Obama box. What Fukino did was to disclose personal information and render a judgment because there was a controversy. I say that now any time there is a question of citizenship in Hawaii (it would seem you would agree that this would apply to a director of a DoH of any state), Fukino (or subsequent director) can examine the vital records and make a statement about the birth place of an individual. I put this to you as well, Doc C.

  35. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 7:23 pm #

    I don’t know the point of what you are asking. If you don’t believe the request was made, then you’ll just have to not believe it. If you are suggesting something else, then I have no way to defend my character on the internet. You’ll have to think of me what you will.

  36. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 7:24 pm #

    You would likely classify me as a birther, but when I read this, I laughed like hell:

    “Apparently Massa claimed that Rahm came up to him one day in the House locker room, stark naked, started screaming obscenities at him — to which I say, welcome to my world. (Laughter.)”

  37. avatar
    Scientist May 2, 2010 at 7:30 pm #

    I guess my question for you, “charo”, is how are the minutiae of how Hawaii manages its records your concern, unless you were born there and need them to supply your records? Even if you were born there, have you found them unable to meet your reasonable requests for your documents? I doubt that is the case. And if you weren’t born there, you must have a very nice life indeed if the biggest worry you have is how some state handles its birth records…

  38. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 7:34 pm #

    Doc,

    I can’t reply above so I will just sum up about the whole long form v. short form. If you have any interest in family history, then you might recognize some of the issues that will arise in the future if others should try to discover their roots and investigate family history. Families who are close will preserve their histories; that doesn’t always happen. Someone on my paternal grandmother’s side did extensive work on family history; on my mother’s side, it is pretty much lost.

    Prior generations didn’t have to deal with identity theft, which may be a main contributing factor for limiting information.

    I responded above with some more thoughts on the Fukino statement.

  39. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 7:47 pm #

    “guess my question for you, “charo”, is how are the minutiae of how Hawaii manages its records your concern, …”

    I guess we could play a game of “what business is it of yours,” i.e. why are you concerned that I am responding on a discussion board, but that would get old very quickly.

    I think I have followed the rules here, as far as I can tell. But, as you will. I don’t need to be here.

  40. avatar
    Scientist May 2, 2010 at 7:50 pm #

    I have also done some research on family roots. I don’t see the relevance of the name of the delivery room doctor, unless they are themselves a relative. Nor is the hospital relevant. If you go back more than 2 or 3 generations, then everyone was born at home without a doctor anyway.

  41. avatar
    richsadz@q.com May 2, 2010 at 7:57 pm #

    yes it does, only vested parties may make request, the constant requests by post & fail who no vested interest is a waste of time.

    vested inters = family member

  42. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 7:59 pm #

    Well, Scientist, you don’t have to sound so grumpy. I referred to the FUTURE. Some people are fascinated by family history. Knowing the names and background of all the players can sometimes lead to interesting stories. My dad has a very unusual first name. Somewhere along the way I was told that he was named after the dr that delivered him. I can’t confirm that. I was always curious as to whether it was the first or last name of the dr.

    I know however, that I am wasting time explaining anything, given your clear tone.

    So, it was an interesting time here while it lasted. I think that is the way you want it.

  43. avatar
    Scientist May 2, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    You are needlessly worried about the future. People under 25 today record everything that happens to them, whether good, bad or indifferent, and post it on YouTube and Facebook. Those born from here forward will be able to see everything from the moment they were conceived, their birth, their first step and so on at the click of a mouse. Everyone else will be able to see it also. State records may even be done away with, since everything will be there for all to see anyway.

  44. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 8:13 pm #

    charo: I think I have followed the rules here

    We have RULES? ๐Ÿ™„

  45. avatar
    nbC May 2, 2010 at 8:15 pm #

    Obama admits

    “At least my approval ratings are still high in the country of my birth”

  46. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 8:30 pm #

    charo: Fukino did not say that she looked at the index in her statement but the original vital records. Are you saying that Fukino is allowed to disclose whether or not someone is a citizen or not based upon an examination of individual vital records?

    You are confusing “index” with “index data”. The wording of Dr. Fukino’s statement indicates that she looked at the actual documents themselves. The data items which she disclosed were “index data”– data which appears in the public record, the index of births in the state. Her comment that Obama was a natural born citizen is not a “disclosure” since citizenship is not in the record to disclose, but rather the obvious conclusion from the President being born in Hawaii.

    I suppose that the base error in your approach is that you haven’t read the relevant law, a problem that I will help you resolve:

    HRS §338-18 Disclosure of records. (d) Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.

    By explanation, the “type of event” in this case is a “live birth” which is a birth of a child who takes a breath in the jurisdiction reported within the time required by statute. So when Dr. Fukino says that Obama was born in Hawaii, she is stating the type of event in layman’s language. (Other types of event are Delayed registration, foreign-born adoption, fetal death, etc.)

    While birthers pretend to believe in the constitution, when Dr. Fukino expresses an opinion they don’t like (like Barack Obama is a natural born citizen) some of them demand she be punished. Hypocrites, I say.

  47. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 8:31 pm #

    Excuse me for not using the proper terminology: I have followed the

    VISITOR GUIDE:

    Feedback is welcome. Feel free to leave your comments, so long as the topic is relevant to the blog. Don’t try to advertise your online casino. This is mostly a “G” rated blog, so please tone down the language.

    The following comments are not allowed:

    * advertising
    * obscenity
    * off topic
    * violent or insulting (loosely enforced)
    * displaying personal information (strictly enforced)

    I guess the tone is set in stone here.

    I’ll thank myself for playing and promise not to let the door hit me (you know where; I am following VISITOR GUIDE) on the way out.

  48. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 8:39 pm #

    As the door was closing, I decided to throw in this (the index data was in reference to another response from someone else whatever4 at 11:49)

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    Her own words tell you what she did. She looked at the actual records, which you yourself noted, and made a statement. Precedent.

    Door closing…

  49. avatar
    charo May 2, 2010 at 8:42 pm #

    I guess my quoting the Visitor Guide violated the Visitor Guide???

    Maybe moderation issue…

    No sweat.

  50. avatar
    dunstvangeet May 2, 2010 at 8:47 pm #

    Yes, I have, charo.

    On the back of the COLB, it says, “I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawaii Department of Health. Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., State Registrar”

    Further, it has a seal of the State Department of Health.

    That is all the information you need.

  51. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 8:58 pm #

    No comment by you is in moderation. Just try again.

  52. avatar
    richsadz@q.com May 2, 2010 at 9:50 pm #

    so what?

  53. avatar
    richsadz@q.com May 2, 2010 at 9:52 pm #

    that was really funny, he is screwing with the birthers, drive ’em bats.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy May 2, 2010 at 10:26 pm #

    I was much more impressed by what Obama said at the end of his talk about the media [link to transcript]:

    Today’s technology … has made it possible for us to get our news and information from a growing range of sources. We can pick and choose not only our preferred type of media, but also our preferred perspective. And while that exposes us to an unprecedented array of opinions, analysis, and points of view, it also makes it that much more important that we’re all operating on a common baseline of facts. It makes it that much more important that journalists out there seek only the truth.

    And I don’t have to tell you that. Some of you are seasoned veterans who have been on the political beat for decades; others here tonight began their careers as bloggers not long ago. But I think it’s fair to say that every single reporter in this room believes deeply in the enterprise of journalism. Every one of you, even the most cynical among you, understands and cherishes the function of a free press and the preservation of our system of government and of our way of life.

    And I want you to know that for all the jokes and the occasional gripes, I cherish that work, as well. In fact, tonight I wanted to present all of you with a bipartisan congressional resolution that honors all those wonderful contributions that journalists have made to our country and the world — but, unfortunately, I couldn’t break the filibuster. (Laughter.)

  55. avatar
    Tomtech May 2, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    The birthers are still scouring the planet for all the dirt they can get on Steve Obama and Steve Soetoro.

  56. avatar
    richsadz@q.com May 2, 2010 at 10:40 pm #

    the point is “post & email” wants to somehow prove Obama was not born in Hawaii, what is your point, the same? too bad, he was born in Hawaii! Your “Precedent” don’t mean didly.

    What would you or post & email do if full records are released and show Obama born in Hawaii?

    Hating Obam causes brain damage! Just vote for someone else and stop the stupid birther stuff, it is going no where. Presidenting while black is not cause for impeachment.

  57. avatar
    racosta May 2, 2010 at 10:43 pm #

    note the laughs and applause at Obama’s birther jokes at the dinner Saturday. that was funny! Birthers are a joke!

  58. avatar
    nbC May 2, 2010 at 11:17 pm #

    Listen to his commencement address at the University of Michigan. He explains in much more details his vision.

    What a leader

  59. avatar
    racosta May 2, 2010 at 11:21 pm #

    for all to see
    a freshman senator has to show up at Sgt/Arms and show ID and proof of citizenship, BC or passport acceptable. All freshman senators do this as did Obama and the real Scott Brown (ask him)

    that’s the way the ball bounces, birther! Except for all of the 19 Birthers, this is all over. They need to get another hobby, hating Obama is detrimental to health (mental health) and will go no where.

  60. avatar
    Hawaiiborn May 3, 2010 at 1:45 am #

    I guess my question for you, “charo”, is how are the minutiae of how Hawaii manages its records your concern, unless you were born there and need them to supply your records?Even if you were born there, have you found them unable to meet your reasonable requests for your documents?I doubt that is the case.And if you weren’t born there, you must have a very nice life indeed if the biggest worry you have is how some state handles its birth records…

    I was born and raised there and I have no issues with their record keeping. My COLB obtained in 2006 was good enough for all the legal issues I needed it for.

  61. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 3, 2010 at 12:23 pm #

    Come on, they should have gotten COLBERT instead! ๐Ÿ˜‰

  62. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 7:31 pm #

    charo,

    You, just like Obama, could get a copy of your, or your grandaughter’s vital records. I will guarantee you that you can also get the copies certified.

    If you simply fill out a request for a copy of your birth certificate, you will get a COLB.

    Dr. Conspiracy seems to want you to think that the state will let you see your records, and they will let you copy your records, but they will refuse to identify them as certified copies. That proposition is ludicrous. Any records that you obtain from the government can be certified by the office who maintains those records.

  63. avatar
    WTF? May 3, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    The fact that Hawaii has a birth report on file does nothing to help determine the veracity of that report. It may have been filed by a hospital or it may have been fraudulently filed by Obama’s grandparent.

    I can tell you this much; Obama doesn’t want you to know whether it was filed by a hospital or his grandparent.

  64. avatar
    nbc May 3, 2010 at 7:43 pm #

    I can tell you this much; Obama doesn’t want you to know whether it was filed by a hospital or his grandparent.

    It really does not affect his natural born status now does it. Unless some real evidence can be shown that he was not born on US soil. All legally admissible evidence shows him a natural born citizen.

    The veracity of the report is determined by the Department of Health of Hawaii, not you or me.

    The combination of a valid COLB and supported by specific statements of the Hawaiian DOH virtually makes this a non-issue. Other than to those holding to an ever moving goalpost approach, unable to accept the election of our President.

  65. avatar
    Black Lion May 4, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    More humor from the “I hate Obama” 1% of the population. This seems along the line of the infamous report from the Western Center of Journalism….

    http://www.exposeobama.com/2010/04/29/new-investigation-into-obama-background-spells-trouble-ahead/

    “A brand new, in-depth investigation into the background of Barack Obama may spell big trouble ahead regarding the issue of Presidential eligibility.

    The investigation was conducted by Northeast Intelligence Network–a team of experienced, professional private investigators whose services have been utilized by Fortune-500 companies. The director, Douglas J. Hagmann, is a 23-year veteran in high-level investigations and is a member of the International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association.

    Hagmann’s investigation into the background and Constitutional eligibility of Barack Obama to serve as President of the United States is extensive and thorough. His conclusions are stunning.

    For example, neither of Obama’s parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth. Therefore, Obama would have to have been born on U.S. soil in order to qualify as a natural born citizen’ according to the qualifications specified in the Constitution.

    But Hagmann’s investigation reveals that, contrary to the notion of those who point to a short-form birth certificate in Hawaii, and 2 birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers, neither of these factors proves anything at all about Obama’s status or citizenship:”

  66. avatar
    sarina May 4, 2010 at 7:35 pm #

    richCares

    Also watch this: “what birthers believe”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u3Ax8UQ9ac

    Hilarious! Birthers you can watch it too!

  67. avatar
    Slartibartfast May 4, 2010 at 8:19 pm #

    Sorry to make an off-topic post, but I know that Mario reads this blog and I thought that you might be interested in this exchange. Apparently Mario is afraid of this line of argument…

    I recently posted the following comment on an article on Mario Apuzzo’s blog:

    A question: In light of the facts that the founding fathers most likely read de Vattel’s work in the original French and the term ‘natural born citizen’ didn’t appear in an English translation of ‘The Law of Nations’ until AFTER the ratification of the Constitution, why didn’t the founding fathers use the term ‘indigenous’ in Article II, Section I? (That being the obvious translation of the French.)

    Commander Kerchner posted this response to my comment:

    Slartibartfast:

    Brand new user ID just created. Hmmh. Do you know any of the team Mario wrote about.

    To your question …

    You must read the whole of section 212 and it is very clear that “natural born Citizen” is the correct English translation of the subject of that sentence and that is exactly what John Jay wrote in his letter to General Washington in the summer of 1787 when the Constitution was written. John Jay was fluent in French and an ardent reader and believer in Vattel’s Law of Nations. That is how John Jay conveyed in English to Washington the intent of putting that term in Article II as a “strong check” against foreign influence by requiring only a “natural born Citizen” be allowed to serve as the President and Commander of the military. To be born with no foreign claims and allegiances at birth and thus have not foreign influence on you at birth, you have unity of citizenship at birth, i.e., you must be born of two Citizen parents of a country, on the soil of that country ,,. a natural born Citizen.

    You can twist and squirm in the face of the truth and choose not to recognize the writings of Vattel and a founder David Ramsay all you want about this, but if you read the entirety of Section 212 of Vattel, Volume 1, Chapter 19, Section 212, in either French or English the message, meaning, and intent is the same. Vattel chose the words he did in French and then immediately defined those words. The corrected English translation of those words in 1797 were again immediately defined in the rest of the sentence and paragraph. It is clear as a bell to anyone with intellectual honesty and a seeker of the truth and a student of history and the founding of our Republic. SCOTUS case quote directly from Vattel and restate in English exactly what was meant by “natural born Citizen”. Read the Venus case of 1814 and the Happersett case of 1875 for examples. See these links:

    [links removed]

    I sent in this reply which has apparently fallen victim to moderation:

    Commander Kerchner,

    Thank you for your answer. While I just created the google account for ‘Slartibartfast’, I am an occasional poster (under that pseudonym) at Dr. Conspiracy’s site and a regular poster at George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley’s site (while I use the same pseudonym there, I have revealed my identity so it is not anonymous). I’m not on any ‘team’ and I’m not filled with hate. I am a supporter of President Obama and believe that a certified copy of his COLB (assuming it confirms the information on the version posted online) is sufficient proof that he is a natural born citizen to any US court.

    I don’t find your argument persuasive since in other cases where the founders did not want their words to be interpreted in the context of English Common Law, they explicitly said so (such as the definition of the term ‘treason’). In addition, I think that the the statement

    “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

    in the majority opinion of US vs. Wong Kim Ark clearly indicates that President Obama would have been a natural born citizen if BOTH of his parents were aliens (and he was born in Hawaii), but since he is the child of a US citizen born in the United States (and under its jurisdiction) I don’t think that there is any doubt that he is a natural born citizen and eligible for the office he holds.

    Lest you brand me an obot scared of legal challenges to the president’s eligibility or laws requiring proof of eligibility to get on the ballot (like the measure that recently died in the Arizona legislature), let me say that I am strongly in favor of legislation such as the Arizona eligibility measure and fully expect that at least one court case will surmount the standing hurdle in the run-up to the 2012 election and be heard by a court. I am confident that in such an event an official copy of the COLB (which must be given full faith and credit by any state and satisfies the federal definition of a birth certificate) will suffice to prove President Obama’s natural born status and if any court rules on the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ that they will come to the same conclusion as the (non-binding) precedent set by the Indiana court in the Ankeny decision.

    I expect that the effect of any eligibility law or lawsuit will be to demonstrate that President Obama is a natural born citizen in a very high profile way and totally marginalize the eligibility movement. So I wish you and Mr. Apuzzo the best of luck in attempting what I expect will greatly benefit the effort to re-elect President Obama.

    Apparently this line of argument doesn’t fit into Mr. Apuzzo and Cmdr Kerchner’s narrative about hateful O-bots who are scared of the eligibility question…

  68. avatar
    Mary May 13, 2010 at 10:46 am #

    I can only respond to/question what I read. What I understand that the “birthers” believe, the COLB may very well be an “official” document of Hawaii. However, it does NOT prove he was born in Hawaii, because Hawaii at that time issued these same certificates to children born all over southeast Asia/elsewhere who immigrated to Hawaii. I do not know if this is true or not.
    Also, even if Obama was born in Hawaii, the fact remains he lived, and I believe, was adopted by his mother’s second husband and that his school records/other documents would reveal him to be a foreign student. These are the documents that he does not want the U. S. voters to see and refuses to release them. Where’s there smoke, there’s fire. If there’s no truth to the “birthers” beliefs, couldn’t he quiet them by releasing the documents needed to prove his eligibility, which I truly believe ALL candidates in this day and age should be required to do.

  69. avatar
    Scientist May 13, 2010 at 10:59 am #

    Mary: President Obama has released his school records. I have them and would be happy to send you a copy. Unfortunately, I need to request a small fee to cover photocopying, postage and other expenses. Please wire $300,000 to my secret bank account; if you can do it before 4 PM Eastern Time, I will put them in today’s mail.

    Thank you for your request.

  70. avatar
    Black Lion May 13, 2010 at 11:56 am #

    Mary, you really must stop reading the birther talking points and do your own research. If you don’t you will continue to look very foolish. All of your so called concerns have already bee debunked as myths. What I can’t understand is why you come to a site repeating things that have already been proven false? Do you think that somehow we will all forget that what you said is just not true? But let me challenge you instead of addressing your points. Can you provide us with the proof of the claims you make? I mean a HI statute that “issued these same certificates to children born all over southeast Asia/elsewhere who immigrated to Hawaii.” Or proof that someone born in southeast asia ever received a COLB from HI? You claim that it was a common practice, so it should be simple.

    Maybe we will start with something easier. You make the following claim…”[Obama]was adopted by his mother’s second husband and that his school records/other documents would reveal him to be a foreign student.” So it should be simple for you to show us the adoption papers and some record that he attended school as a foreign student. Come on. You were so adamant in your post that those were the “reasons”, so you must have proof. If not then you are a “Scott Brown”, someone that spews nonsense and lies.

  71. avatar
    Jerry Reed May 13, 2010 at 7:10 pm #

    Mary, Mary …
    I know of no proven instance that Hawaii knowingly issued a birth certificate stating that someone born outside Hawaii was really born in that state. Can you?
    It bears repeating: No child can lose his/her citizenship by being adopted in a foreign country by a foreigner. Never happened, never will unless they radically change the law. Even a parent can’t relinquish a child’s U.S. citizenship. Read CAREFULLY Perkins v. Eng. And you BELIEVE his records would show him a foreign student? Your belief, like most people’s is strongly colored by what you WANT to believe, so how can your mere belief be cited as credible evidence?