Main Menu

Nails in coffins

It seems like “nail in the coffin” season here at Obama Conspiracy Theories. First we looked at the article Note to the Lying Communist Obots: The Nail in the African Coffin; The Facts Don’t Lie! from ObamaReleaseYourRecords, and now, thanks to a contributor, I’ve just found another one being resurrected from last year at anti-Obama smear sites, originally published at NOBARACK08: Nail in the COLB Coffin.

Crank image analysis is always fun and that’s what we have in our second “nail.” This one is not particularly hard to understand and debunk and it is not accompanied (thankfully) by a unending rant like Polarik’s “Final Analysis.”

So what’s the argument? It has to do with two documents. The first is an uncertified photocopy of a Hawaiian long form birth certificate produced in 2010 for an Internet writer named Danae. We’ve talked about that certificate before as to its authenticity (I believe it’s authentic). The second document is the Certification of Live Birth provided to the Daily KOS web site by Barack Obama, lovingly referred to (sorry about the sarcasm) as the COLB. The COLB has been discussed to death here as well.  Both documents are redacted — something is removed or obscured. In the case of the Danae certificate, it is name and address information, and in the case of Barack Obama’s COLB it is the certificate number.

The claim from NOBARACK08 is that redaction exists in “layers” that can be removed. In both cases, the redacted area looks like a black rectangle. When redaction is “removed” from the Danae certificate, underlying details are revealed; when “removed” from the COLB nothing is revealed. The article’s conclusion is that there was nothing originally in the redacted portion of the COLB, and hence never had a certificate number and is a fake.

At this point anyone who knows much about image processing is scratching their head and wondering why something this silly is being written about1. They know that you can easily redact something completely from an image. The only reason the Danae redaction would have underlying information is that it wasn’t done right.

JPG images don’t have layers in the first place. What the author actually did was  to change the 100% black color to white, making anything gray stand out. The Danae certificate must have been redacted using some degree of transparency in the black square. I don’t know how it was screwed up; I just know it was. To prove the coffin nail was just made of rubber, I took the Daily KOS COLB and redacted it some more, then ran the same color replacement process. You guessed it, nothing from a properly redacted underlying image remains. Try it for yourself.

 

Properly redacted image. Click for full size.

Conclusion: The Obama campaign team is better at redaction than Danae.


1There are mathematical techniques that may be used in limited situations to recover limited information from a document redacted using normal image redaction. However, these techniques were not what was described in the article under discussion.

Print Friendly

290 Responses to Nails in coffins

  1. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 13, 2011 at 8:56 am #

    “The Steady Drip” blog is touting this story as “Important research I missed.” That blogger, Aristotle the Hun, is one of those folks who runs around the Internet posting crank analysis and making false statements at news sites and other forums.

  2. avatar
    Mary Adams March 14, 2011 at 6:10 pm #

    Whoa! Made me run and check my BC pix that are posted online. Nothing.

    But yeah, I can adjust Danae’s and the info is there, but too fuzzy to read.

    I guess I’m better at redacting than Danae too. ;-)

  3. avatar
    gorefan March 14, 2011 at 9:32 pm #

    I know absolutely nothing about image processing, but it seems to me, you could open a jpeg into Microsoft Paint, use the rectangle tool to draw a rectangle around the certification number and then use the fill tool to fill the rectangle completely with black, then save the edit image.

    I would assume that if every pixel is changed to black, there would be no way to retrieve the original data.

    Is that a correct assumption?

  4. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 15, 2011 at 12:06 am #

    Yes, your assumption is correct.

  5. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 15, 2011 at 12:09 am #

    gorefan:
    I know absolutely nothing about image processing, but it seems to me, you could open a jpeg into Microsoft Paint, use the rectangle tool to draw a rectangle around the certification number and then use the fill tool to fill the rectangle completely with black, then save the edit image.

    I would assume that if every pixel is changed to black, there would be no way to retrieve the original data.

    Is that a correct assumption?

    That is correct – image files are generally bitmaps (or compressed bitmaps), so there are no ‘layers’ of information.

  6. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 15, 2011 at 12:33 am #

    While I could believe that it was theoretically possible (though very, very, very, very unlikely) to uncover the original material from an image of a physically redacted document (provided the person doing the redaction was incompetent), digital redaction doesn’t leave any of the original pixels there at all (assuming, as Doc mentioned, that the redaction wasn’t done with semi-transparent black…). It seems like logical thought is not a step in the birther ‘research’ process…

  7. avatar
    The Magic M March 15, 2011 at 5:14 am #

    > image files are generally bitmaps (or compressed bitmaps), so there are no layers’ of information.

    Of course my comment explaining that simple and undeniable fact about JPG images didn’t make it through moderation over at “nobarack08″…

    If anything proves the intellectual dishonesty of the birthers, it’s the fact that even undeniable facts (2+2=4, Earth is spherical, JPG images have no layers) are suppressed by them if it fits their agenda.

  8. avatar
    Lil' Red March 15, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    The correct answer is YES. It may be possible to recover information from redacted images.

    Residual Information of Redacted Images Hidden in the Compression Artifacts

    http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~changec/publications/2008_IH_Residual_Information_Redacted_Image.pdf

    Read it. Learn something. It may help all of you to avoid such demonstrations of ignorance in the future.

  9. avatar
    Bovril March 15, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    Suggest ya read the paper first Lil’ Red before pontificating.

    The theoretical attack posited in the paper assumes that the redaction takes place under very specific conditions with again very specific pre and post redaction compression and manipulation.

    It also assumes that the attacker has a specific pre-defined template to work against for the comparison as well as working from data that may or may NOT be held in directly adjacent pixels blocks.

    Without these elements beinmg matched you’re SOOL

    In other words as specifically stated by Slarti

    (though very, very, very, very unlikely)

    Muppet

  10. avatar
    Majority Will March 15, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    Bovril:
    Suggest ya read the paper first Lil’ Red before pontificating.

    The theoretical attack posited in the paper assumes that the redaction takes place under very specific conditions with again very specific pre and post redaction compression and manipulation.

    It also assumes that the attacker has a specific pre-defined template to work against for the comparison as well as working from data that may or may NOT be held in directly adjacent pixels blocks.

    Without these elements beinmg matched you’re SOOL

    In other words as specifically stated by Slarti

    Muppet

    Reading comprehension has never been a strong suit for many birthers. Arrogance and illogical and baseless speculation, however, are quite well developed.

  11. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2011 at 12:45 pm #

    Majority Will: Reading comprehension has never been a strong suit for many birthers. Arrogance and illogical and baseless speculation, however, are quite well developed.

    Too many big words for a birther to read and try to comprehend.
    And speaking of “comprehension,” can anyone explain to me what Doc C. meant by Danae’s Certificate of Live Birth is “authentic?” I read and read on the original thread and never understood what Doc C. was meaning to say.

  12. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 15, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    Lil' Red:
    The correct answer is YES. It may be possible to recover information from redacted images.

    Residual Information of Redacted Images Hidden in the Compression Artifacts

    http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~changec/publications/2008_IH_Residual_Information_Redacted_Image.pdf

    Read it. Learn something. It may help all of you to avoid such demonstrations of ignorance in the future.

    Okay, I took a look at the paper you posted (I understand it better, I’m guessing, than you did before you posted it…). As someone who knows something about image compression – the theory, anyway (I took a class in fractal image compression in school and have a PhD in mathematics and I’ve forgotten more about Fourier transforms than you will likely ever know) – I would point out a couple of things:

    1. The methods in this paper are nothing like the naive methods used in the birther ‘analysis’ (in other words, while it may be possible to recover redacted images from lossy compression, it is not possible that the person behind ‘nobarack08′ recovered redacted images via the method they described (which, I suspect, would make the authors of the paper )

    2. You have not shown that this analysis can be applied to the image of the COLB posted online (what kind of image is it, what is the compression of the original image which was redacted and what is the compression of the online image?) You need to KNOW all of these things to perform this sort of analysis.

    3. Fractal image compression works by converting local data (the color of each pixel) into global data (usually via a DFCT – don’t know what a ‘DFCT’ is? Then you probably shouldn’t be shooting your mouth off here… (for those obots here – who actually like to know what they’re talking about, a ‘DFCT’ is a Discrete Fourier Cosine Transform)). Thus, under certain circumstances and to a certain degree, the original information from the redacted area (which had been spread out to the whole by the original compression process) can be recovered FROM THE WHOLE COMPRESSED IMAGE, NOT FROM JUST THE REDACTED AREA! (Actually, I think that it’s even worse than this – for the birthers – but I can’t explain why without getting technical…)

    4. Did you even establish if the original image was stored in a lossy format? If not, then there is no residual information in any case…

    To paraphrase ‘A Fish Called Wanda’…

    Wanda the Obot: I was dealing with something delicate, Otto. I’m setting up a guy who’s incredibly unimportant to us, who’s lying about what’s under the redactions and if they’re going to come and arrest President Obama. And you come loping in like Rambo without a jockstrap and you dangle him out a fifth-floor window. [metaphorically speaking - he didn't use the method in the paper you linked and thus can't defend his analysis with it...] Now, was that smart? Was it shrewd? Was it good tactics? Or was it stupid?

    Lil’ Red Otto: Don’t call me stupid.

    Wanda the Obot: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I’ve known sheep that could outwit you. I’ve worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you’re an intellectual, don’t you, ape?

    Lil’ Red Otto: Apes don’t read philosophy.

    Wanda the Obot: Yes they do, Otto. They just don’t understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Vattel was not a founder. Dr. Dunham didn’t travel to Kenya in 1961. And President Obama is not a usurper. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.

  13. avatar
    Majority Will March 15, 2011 at 12:52 pm #

    Joey: Too many big words for a birther to read and try to comprehend.

    Excellent point. :-)

  14. avatar
    Bovril March 15, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    Joey: And speaking of “comprehension,” can anyone explain to me what Doc C. meant by Danae’s Certificate of Live Birth is “authentic?” I read and read on the original thread and never understood what Doc C. was meaning to say.

    Joey,

    The data that “Danae” showed at Freeperville was raw personal data from her BC that was in excess of the data provided in a standard COLB.

    It was provided by the relevant department of government of Hawai’i

    It was NOT legally binding, was not certified and cannot be entered in court as a formal record.

    As such it is “authentic” but also inherently valueless and proves nothing.

  15. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    Bovril: Joey,

    The data that “Danae” showed at Freeperville was raw personal data from her BC that was in excess of the data provided in a standard COLB.

    It was provided by the relevant department of government of Hawai’i

    It was NOT legally binding, was not certified and cannot be entered in court as a formal record.

    As such it is “authentic” but also inherently valueless and proves nothing.

    Sorry to be so dense, but when you say “standard COLB” do you mean “standard long form Certificate of Live Birth” or do you mean standard short form “Certification of Live Birth?”

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2011 at 2:10 pm #

    Slartibartfast: 1. The methods in this paper are nothing like the naive methods used in the birther analysis’ (in other words, while it may be possible to recover redacted images from lossy compression, it is not possible that the person behind nobarack08′ recovered redacted images via the method they described (which, I suspect, would make the authors of the paper )

    Let me qualify that. Redacted material from the Danae certificate was retrieved by the authors of the paper using their naive method. I was able to replicate this. However, the reason they were able to retrieve it using a naive method is that the information was redacted using a naive method.

    The redaction method I used was convert the lossy JPEG image to a bitmap, delete the material to be redacted, fill the space in with black and convert it back to a lossy JPEG image. I don’t know enough to say that this conversion to bitmap and back completely removed any trace of the redacted material, but it completely removed it insofar as the naive method of retrieval used in the article, thereby invalidating the thesis of the article.

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    Joey: And speaking of “comprehension,” can anyone explain to me what Doc C. meant by Danae’s Certificate of Live Birth is “authentic?”

    Danae claims that she recently called the State of Hawaii,was able to order a non-certified copy of her original long form birth certificate, and that she put a redacted copy of that certificate for view on the Internet.

    I believe that the document she put on the Internet is what she claims it to be, an authentic state-provided, non-certified copy of a Hawaiian long form birth certificate obtained after Hawaii went paperless in 2001.

    Some of the Obots make a point that the State of Hawaii doesn’t issue long-form birth certificates any more. While they don’t normally do this, I doubt that this is an absolute rule. The Danae certificate copy weakens the Obot argument. In email correspondence with me Danae said that she had to explain why she needed the long form certificate and then Dr. Onaka asked her whether she needed a certified copy or not and that she said no. Based on this exchange, which I file quite plausible, it seems to me that she could have gotten a certified copy if she had asked for it.

  18. avatar
    sfjeff March 15, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    Okay this is off topic but I thought I would mention the lastest Social Security number claim:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/other-miscellaneous/176759-revealed-obamas-ct-social-security-traced-john-paul-ludwig-lived-ct-died-hi.html

    “Revealed: Obama’s CT Social Security # Traced To John Paul Ludwig (Lived CT-Died HI)

    ——————————————————————————–

    This news is breaking: This is bad news for Obama.

    This is what we know so far. We get more info on Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890, had CT SSN obtained in 1976 and died in HI around 1981. There are 2 SS numbers for him and records show him dying in 2 different states: CA and HI around 1981.

    The reason this is important, is because there is a similar fact pattern to Obama. Barack Obama is residing today in the White House, using CT SS number 042-68-4425, issued in CT in and around March 1977 to an elderly individual named John Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890, who is presumed dead and whose death was either never reported to the SS administration or reported and deleted from the database by someone.

    Obama’s maternal grandmother Madelyn Dunham, worked as a part-timer or volunteer in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse. Thus she would have access to the estate files of anyone who died there. Thus if the elderly man originally from CT died intestate in Hawaii with no known relatives, Grandma Dunham would have known this person is a prime candidate to steal the SSN of since there would be no known surviving family worrying about the death benefit from SSN and that the benefit was not likely applied for and thus SSA did not know he died. Thus the SSN remained active for the deceased person and Obama could “adopt” it as his own. This is a clear case of identity theft at the federal level.

    This is what we know about Ludwig:

    In 1924, Jean Paul Ludwig worked for Senator Reed of PA, in Washington DC.

    On the ship manifest of ‘Leviathan’, he listed Senator Reed in Washington, DC as his empl., in answer to where he intended to live in the US.

    Jean Paul Ludwig had been in the US for 3 yrs in 1924, but he was listed on the “Immigration” manifest and refered to as an alien in the column headings.

    Listed under “States Immigration Officer at Port of Arrival”, New York, Aug 12, 1924:

    Jean Paul Ludwig, Date of Arrival: Aug 12, 1924, Port of Departure:
    Cherbourg, France, Line#: 0008

    Line #8: By Whom was Passage Paid: Emp. Mr. Reed; Whether in possession of $50: Yes; Whether ever before in US: Yes; If Yes-Period of Years: 3; Where: PA

    Whether going to join relative or friend: Empl. Senator Reed, Washingto, DC

    Length of time alien intends to remain in the US: Always

    Height 5′5‘, Complexion Dk., Hair Br., Eyes Br., Marks of ID: None

    Place of Birth: France, Ammersville.

    http://www.ellisisland.org/sign/inde…T=LL&section=3

    First Name: Jean P.
    Last Name: Ludwig
    Ethnicity: France
    Last Place of Residence: Washington, D.C.
    Date of Arrival: Aug 12, 1924
    Age at Arrival: 34 Gender: M Marital Status: S
    Ship of Travel: Leviathan
    Port of Departure: Cherbourg, France
    Manifest Line Number: 0008

    U.S. Social Security Death Index
    Name: Jean Ludwig
    Birth Date: 17 February 1890
    Zip Code of Last Residence: 96816 (Honolulu,HI)
    Death Date: June 1981
    Estimated Age at Death: 91″

    Most of this is the usual Birther conspiracy stuff, and of course no references or links, but has anyone else hear this claim yet?

    Frankly the bizarre SS# claims of Birthers is beyond my ablity to decipher.

  19. avatar
    G March 15, 2011 at 2:26 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Some of the Obots make a point that the State of Hawaii doesn’t issue long-form birth certificates any more. While they don’t normally do this, I doubt that this is an absolute rule. The Danae certificate copy weakens the Obot argument. In email correspondence with me Danae said that she had to explain why she needed the long form certificate and then Dr. Onaka asked her whether she needed a certified copy or not and that she said no. Based on this exchange, which I file quite plausible, it seems to me that she could have gotten a certified copy if she had asked for it.

    My only problem with her story is why would she say “no” if offered a certified copy? I mean, that is one of the birther “holy grails”. It doesn’t make sense that she’d go through all that effort and then decide to only get the photocopy souvenier if the “real deal” she claimed to always be after in the first place was being offered to her…

  20. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 15, 2011 at 2:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Let me qualify that. Redacted material from the Danae certificate was retrieved by the authors of the paper using their naive method. I was able to replicate this. However, the reason they were able to retrieve it using a naive method is that the information was redacted using a naive method.

    The redaction method I used was convert the lossy JPEG image to a bitmap, delete the material to be redacted, fill the space in with black and convert it back to a lossy JPEG image. I don’t know enough to say that this conversion to bitmap and back completely removed any trace of the redacted material, but it completely removed it insofar as the naive method of retrieval used in the article, thereby invalidating the thesis of the article.

    Thanks, Doc. Based on my understanding of the method described in the paper (which could only pick out possibilities from a limited set of templates – they used 5 different templates (box numbers) in the study), your method would, at worst, leave only a minute fraction of the original information – I don’t believe that there is any possible way to reconstruct an image that degraded (based on my understanding of the mathematics of image compression and (mathematical) entropy). But I agree with you that you had already busted the naive birther analysis.

    Lil’ Red,

    Thank you for the paper – it was very interesting. One question, though, did you read it before you posted the link? If you read it, did you understand that it in no way supports the birther image analysis?

  21. avatar
    Joey March 15, 2011 at 2:31 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Danae claims that she recently called the State of Hawaii,was able to order a non-certified copy of her original long form birth certificate, and that she put a redacted copy of that certificate for view on the Internet.

    I believe that the document she put on the Internet is what she claims it to be, an authentic state-provided, non-certified copy of a Hawaiian long form birth certificate obtained after Hawaii went paperless in 2001.

    Some of the Obots make a point that the State of Hawaii doesn’t issue long-form birth certificates any more. While they don’t normally do this, I doubt that this is an absolute rule. The Danae certificate copy weakens the Obot argument. In email correspondence with me Danae said that she had to explain why she needed the long form certificate and then Dr. Onaka asked her whether she needed a certified copy or not and that she said no. Based on this exchange, which I file quite plausible, it seems to me that she could have gotten a certified copy if she had asked for it.

    Is it at all possible in your mind that if Danae had requested a “certified copy” it would have been a short form COLB just like Obama had scanned and posted to “Fight the Smears?”

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Lil' Red: Read it. Learn something. It may help all of you to avoid such demonstrations of ignorance in the future.

    I am aware of this information, but since it was not related to the particular recovery techniques used in the article I criticized, I thought it would unnecessarily muddy the waters to mention it.

  23. avatar
    G March 15, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    sfjeff: Frankly the bizarre SS# claims of Birthers is beyond my ablity to decipher.

    It is up there as one of their dumbest threads of meaningless pursuit. I believe crazy Orly was the originator of bringing the SSN nonsense claims. Their obsession with a dude born in 1890 somehow being part of a vast conspiracy is just completey wack-a-doodle silly.

    My favorite chuckle from the story you posted is this statement they make:

    sfjeff: issued in CT in and around March 1977 to an elderly individual named John Paul Ludwig, who was born in 1890, who is presumed dead and whose death was either never reported to the SS administration or reported and deleted from the database by someone.

    Wow…particularly when their report ends with the data they have specifically listing his death in June 1981.

    So, in their crazed conspiracy minds, who knows why when faced with these records, they merely view him as only “presumed” dead…

    …are they hinting that somehow there is either a walking zombie corpse running around in the shadows or that he is a still living 121 year old man who faked his death 30 years prior in order to help facilitiate the vast “Kenyan Ursurper conspiracy” upon America? Gee…maybe they will look at his background as being “French” as part of the conspiracy…yeah, that’s it…the French have been behind this dastardly plot the whole time…give me my Freedom Fries! LMAO!

  24. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    Joey: Is it at all possible in your mind that if Danae had requested a “certified copy” it would have been a short form COLB just like Obama had scanned and posted to “Fight the Smears?”

    Because this was a private email, I don’t want to disclose exactly why Danae needed the long form, but my understanding of her discussion with the state suggests to me that she could have gotten a certified photocopy of the original long form birth certificate.

    I cannot emphasize enough, however, that this point is completely irrelevant to whether President Obama is eligible or not, or whether he “ought” to release a long form or not.

  25. avatar
    G March 15, 2011 at 2:40 pm #

    Joey: Is it at all possible in your mind that if Danae had requested a “certified copy” it would have been a short form COLB just like Obama had scanned and posted to “Fight the Smears?”

    That seems like a very plausible and reasonable result. Much more plausible than any of the birther nonsense claims.

  26. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 15, 2011 at 2:41 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I am aware of this information, but since it was not related to the particular recovery techniques used in the article I criticized, I thought it would unnecessarily muddy the waters to mention it.

    The birthers love to use factually correct arguments that don’t mean what the birthers think they mean, don’t they? Probably because they don’t have any factual arguments that say what they want…

  27. avatar
    G March 15, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Because this was a private email, I don’t want to disclose exactly why Danae needed the long form, but my understanding of her discussion with the state suggests to me that she could have gotten a certified photocopy of the original long form birth certificate.

    Until someone actually produces such a “certified copy” from a recent or current request, such a scenario remains highly suspect and subject to extreme doubt.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    G: …are they hinting that somehow there is either a walking zombie corpse running around in the shadows or that he is a still living 121 year old man who faked his death 30 years prior in order to help facilitiate the vast “Kenyan Ursurper conspiracy” upon America?

    I don’t think that is the point. They are just proving that not every one who dies gets reported to SSA. Therefore the fact that Obama SSN is not in the death index is not proof that he’s not using some dead person’s SSN.

    Remember how this started…

    The detective ran Obama’s SSN through a database search and got the result that his SSN was associated with three dates of birth:

    8/4/1961 (Obama DOB)
    4/8/1961 (Typo Obama DOB)
    1890

    It wasn’t even a specific date in 1890 and there was never any details about the alleged public record that said 1890. It looks like garbage data to me.

  29. avatar
    G March 15, 2011 at 3:27 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It wasn’t even a specific date in 1890 and there was never any details about the alleged public record that said 1890. It looks like garbage data to me.

    I agree with your analysis and conclusions on how they likely got the 1890 result. GIGO.

  30. avatar
    Tarrant March 15, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    Danae on freep said publicly that she told the state she needed the original long form because she was dealing with some native Hawaiian groups that require additional ancestry information. I do not know if that’s what she said to Doc.

    However, it still confuses me that she wouldn’t have asked for a certified copy – hell, were I a birther I would offer to pay for a certified copy for her, because it would be a fairly significant item.

  31. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    sfjeff: Frankly the bizarre SS# claims of Birthers is beyond my ablity to decipher.

    In a later post, the same poster (Apuzzo) says that the SS# for Jean Paul (045-26-8722) is the same ss# used by the President when he filed for the Selective Service. anyone able to confirm that.

  32. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 15, 2011 at 4:34 pm #

    G: I agree with your analysis and conclusions on how they likely got the 1890 result.GIGO.

    That pretty much describes the whole birther movement…

  33. avatar
    Bovril March 15, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    They would have to have a functional brain first…..just saying

  34. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm #

    gorefan: In a later post, the same poster (Apuzzo) says that the SS# for Jean Paul (045-26-8722) is the same ss# used by the President when he filed for the Selective Service. anyone able to confirm that.

    I can confirm that this is NOT the SSN Obama used to register with Selective Service. See:

    http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2010/05/orly_taitz_grabs_new_headlines.php

    The SSN Obama used for Selective Service begins 042.

  35. avatar
    G March 15, 2011 at 4:53 pm #

    Tarrant: Danae on freep said publicly that she told the state she needed the original long form because she was dealing with some native Hawaiian groups that require additional ancestry information. I do not know if that’s what she said to Doc.However, it still confuses me that she wouldn’t have asked for a certified copy – hell, were I a birther I would offer to pay for a certified copy for her, because it would be a fairly significant item.

    Well, heck, if we’re back to reasons that require more detailed proof of indiginous native Hawaiian ancestry, then that is and always has been a very specific and special case requiring more documented evidence and therefore also allowing access to greater documentation detail for such expressedly SPECIFIC purpose.

    In other words, Danae’s results are even more irrelevant and meaningless to the whole argument on Obama’s access to a “long form” than even before.

    For now, it is a completely dead-end argument, so they birther concern trolling meme of “why can’t he just provide the long form” remains completely an argument WITHOUT ANY merit and absolutely no directly connected evidence that one can get an official certified HI “long form” these days for any standard reason, other than a mere souvenier photocopy in cases of trying to prove native Hawaiian ancestry.

  36. avatar
    Judge Mental March 15, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    Tarrant: Danae on freep said publicly that she told the state she needed the original long form because she was dealing with some native Hawaiian groups that require additional ancestry information. I do not know if that’s what she said to Doc.However, it still confuses me that she wouldn’t have asked for a certified copy – hell, were I a birther I would offer to pay for a certified copy for her, because it would be a fairly significant item.

    To be honest I think some past discussion of Danae’s “long form” photocopy has been a little out of focus and perhaps not concentrated on what should have been the main issues around it.

    The photocopy in question has a couple of fields a bit “lost in space” down at the bottom and the format in general does not bear the slightest resemblance to other “long form” types from Hawaian history that I’ve seen so far. In fact it looks far more like a modern COLB than for example the Nordykes long form.

    I fully understand that the style of “long forms” may have changed several times over the years but I have yet to see any evidence that the Danae photocopy mirrors (in the sense of the nature of its content and lay-out) what original “long forms” issued in that same year would have looked like.

    To be frank it looked to me at the time like a photocopy that Hawaii DOH may have cobbled together by taking the normal standard short form info they would routinely issue to anyone and adding only two additional fields from the other accumulated vital birth records information held on file, as opposed to someone having actually taken a complete long form from the files and photocopying the whole thing.

    It struck me at the time that perhaps these were the only two two fields from the “long form” which contained the specific additional information that Danae somehow convinced Fukino she had to have for the “organisation” she was dealing with and which would have not been shown on a normal standard issue COLB. In other words I was silently speculating that her actual “long form” would have many more fields not photocopied by Hawaii and not sent to Danae.

    I lost touch with the discussion (elsewhere) at that point back then and I’d forgotten all about this aspect til reading recent comments here. Maybe this was raised by someone before as I haven’t visited the subject for quite some time. Apologies if this has been raised before and already explained or dealt with.

  37. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    Tarrant: Danae on freep said publicly that she told the state she needed the original long form because she was dealing with some native Hawaiian groups that require additional ancestry information. I do not know if that’s what she said to Doc.

    If she said “native Hawaiian group” then what she said does not agree with what she told me.

  38. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    All this talk about sloppy redaction brings to mind an article I read some time back:

    http://www.obots.org/archives/201

  39. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2011 at 5:22 pm #

    Judge Mental: I fully understand that the style of “long forms” may have changed several times over the years but I have yet to see any evidence that the Danae photocopy mirrors (in the sense of the nature of its content and lay-out) what original “long forms” issued in that same year would have looked like.

    Here BC actually looks like another BC that has been on the internet for sometimes. It is referred to as the Janna BC. Here is a link:

    http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/birthcertificate.jpg

    and to Danae’s:

    http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/danaecolb-rotatedcropped.jpg

  40. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2011 at 5:24 pm #

    Judge Mental: It struck me at the time that perhaps these were the only two two fields from the “long form” which contained the specific additional information

    Here is the CDC’s “The1968 Revision of the Standard Certificates” publication on BCs , death certificates and marrage ceritifcates.

    Table 1 shows the requirements for BCs for different years. The 1961 BC would be using the 1956 certificate of live birth form.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_04/sr04_008acc.pdf

  41. avatar
    G March 15, 2011 at 5:28 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If she said “native Hawaiian group” then what she said does not agree with what she told me.

    Gee…discrepencies in a birther’s story…what a surprise *NOT*.

    Birthers have continuously demonstrated an overwhelming lack of credibility in just about all of their stories.

    Sounds like any details or reasons coming from Danae should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism. I’m sure, like all good stories, there are grains of truth woven within…but the full account(s) and explained reason(s) as a whole are likely suspect.

  42. avatar
    Judge Mental March 15, 2011 at 6:06 pm #

    gorefan: Here BC actually looks like another BC that has been on the internet for sometimes. It is referred to as the Janna BC. Here is a link:http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/birthcertificate.jpgand to Danae’s:http://nativeborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/danaecolb-rotatedcropped.jpg

    Thanks…..but isn’t that second link actually Danae’s ‘original’ that was already in her possession long before she applied for a copy (simply to prove she could get one)?

    The photocopy image that Danae posted online as purportedly what she received when applying for a copy long form was a black and white image and had two additional fields (father’s race and mother’s race) apparently added at the bottom.

    In the meantime I’ve now found it. You can see it here…..

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/long-form-sighted/

    My memory was a bit fuzzy on the detail.

  43. avatar
    Keith March 15, 2011 at 6:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I believe that the document she put on the Internet is what she claims it to be, an authentic state-provided, non-certified copy of a Hawaiian long form birth certificate obtained after Hawaii went paperless in 2001.

    Doc. You are a professional in this subject matter. A non-certified copy is NOT a certificate.

    “non-certified certificate” is an oxymoron.

  44. avatar
    Keith March 15, 2011 at 6:19 pm #

    Keith: Doc. You are a professional in this subject matter. A non-certified copy is NOT a certificate.

    “non-certified certificate” is an oxymoron.

    On the other hand, perhaps I should read the sentence properly. Your statement was correct.

    Mea Culpa.

  45. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 15, 2011 at 6:20 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: my understanding of her discussion with the state suggests to me that she could have gotten a certified photocopy of the original long form birth certificate.

    Then why didn’t she ask for one?

    I can’t imagine that there would be any sort of discussion going on with a public agency about obtaining a copy of an official document without the requester being asked whether she needed a certified copy. It makes a lot more sense that she may have been told that they were not authorized to issue certified copies under current regulations – at least not without a subpena or court order — but that they could make an uncertified photocopy available.

  46. avatar
    Sef March 15, 2011 at 6:45 pm #

    This whole image analysis discussion reminds me of the pseudo-science in C.S.I. Miami where they extracted a photo of a murderer from a digital photo of the victim by blowing up the reflection from her cornea. At the absolute max the entire eye would have been 1 pixel and they pretended to get info from that. With stuff like this abounding on TV is it any wonder that we have this crank “analysis”?

  47. avatar
    jamese777 March 15, 2011 at 6:51 pm #

    Doc C:
    Do you think that President Obama could use the exact same method as “Danae” to obtain a certified copy of his 1961 Certificate of Live Birth”?

  48. avatar
    Sef March 15, 2011 at 7:11 pm #

    jamese777:
    Doc C:
    Do you think that President Obama could use the exact same method as “Danae” to obtain a certified copy of his 1961 Certificate of Live Birth”?

    Since Danae’s method did not result in a certified copy why would you think that President Obama doing the same thing would result in something different????????? As Einstein said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”,

  49. avatar
    jamese777 March 15, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    Sef: Since Danae’s method did not result in a certified copy why would you think that President Obama doing the same thing would result in something different????????? As Einstein said “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”,

    My understanding is that Doc C feels that “Danae” COULD have asked for a certified copy but didn’t for whatever reason.
    Someone, anyone asking for a certified copy under similar circumstances to Danae’s would be doing a different thing for the first time and expecting a similar result.

  50. avatar
    Sef March 15, 2011 at 7:43 pm #

    jamese777: My understanding is that Doc C feels that “Danae” COULD have asked for a certified copy but didn’t for whatever reason.
    Someone, anyone asking for a certified copy under similar circumstances to Danae’s would be doing a different thing for the first time and expecting a similar result.

    But that wouldn’t be the “exact same method” would it?

  51. avatar
    Scientist March 15, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    sfjeff: Frankly the bizarre SS# claims of Birthers is beyond my ablity to decipher.

    I’m trying to figure out why a 20 year-old Barack Obama would want a SSN from a recently deceased 91 year-old:

    1. To continue to collect his Social Security? OK, I guess that’s conceivable. But then why would he use that number for all his other actvities (work, taxes, college financial aid)? I mean, a SSN for a 90 year-old would raise some eyebrows on a college aid application.

    2. To get credit under someone else’s identity? But then why use your real name? Besides, how much of a credit line would a bank give a 90 year-old?

    3. To pass as a citizen? But an SSN doesn’t confer citizenship. In fact, anyone living or working in the US gets one, whether a citizen or not. And why pick an immigrant from France? In fact, we don’t even know that Mr Ludwig ever became a US citizen.

    4. He couldn’t get his own SSN because he’s an illegal alien? But even if he were born in Kenya and couldn’t claim citizenship due his mother’s marriage being invalid, he was still eligible for automatic naturalization as the minor child of a US citizen. It is not legally possible for the minor child of a US citizen to be an illegal alien in the US.

    So the entire story makes no sense and is therefore not true.

  52. avatar
    jamese777 March 15, 2011 at 8:25 pm #

    Sef: But that wouldn’t be the “exact same method” would it?

    Since Doc C. hasn’t revealed “Danae’s” “method,” who knows? According to Doc C, quoting “Danae,” the Registar of Vital Statistics, Dr. Alvin Onaka gave “Danae” the option of a certified copy or a non-certified copy, she chose the non-certified but it was Doc. C’s OPINION that she could have gotten a long form certified copy as well.

  53. avatar
    Majority Will March 15, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    Scientist: I’m trying to figure out why a 20 year-old Barack Obama would want a SSN from a recently deceased 91 year-old:

    1. To continue to collect his Social Security?OK, I guess that’s conceivable.But then why would he use that number for all his other actvities (work, taxes, college financial aid)?I mean, a SSN for a 90 year-old would raise some eyebrows on a college aid application.

    2. To get credit under someone else’s identity? But then why use your real name?Besides, howmuch of a credit line would a bank give a 90 year-old?

    3. To pass as a citizen? But an SSN doesn’t confer citizenship.In fact, anyone living or working in the US gets one, whether a citizen or not.And why pick an immigrant from France? In fact, we don’t even know that Mr Ludwig ever became a US citizen.

    4. He couldn’t get his own SSN because he’s an illegal alien?But even if he were born in Kenya and couldn’t claim citizenship due his mother’s marriage being invalid, he was still eligible for automatic naturalization as the minor child of a US citizen.It is not legally possible for the minor child of a US citizen to be an illegal alien in the US.

    So the entire story makes no sense and is therefore not true.

    Has any birther including their rageaholic queen ever offered an explanation?

    No, it doesn’t make sense. Not one lick. It never has. And other than shrill cries that it must be fraud for having the number (or even more idiotic, LOTS of numbers), they can’t even spew the usual bizarre birther fabrication as to why this would be done. It’s like they are mentally damaged, spoiled, petulant children without a clue as to how incredibly stupid and desperate that sounds and just shrieking fraud must be some kind of birther magic.

  54. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    jamese777: Doc. C’s OPINION that she could have gotten a long form certified copy as well.

    Yes, it is my opinion, and Danae’s opinion too for what it’s worth.

  55. avatar
    gorefan March 15, 2011 at 9:21 pm #

    sfjeff: Frankly the bizarre SS# claims of Birthers is beyond my ablity to decipher.

    I see that you are posting over at politicalforum with Apuzzo and that he claims that the President’s ss# is the same as Jean Ludwig.

    But a search of the social security death index shows Ludwig’s ss# to be 045-26-8722.

    http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi

    so did Ludwig have several ss#s?

  56. avatar
    gorefan March 16, 2011 at 2:39 am #

    There is a great exchange over at Mario’s site

    http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=4470416488729326285

    Kerchner goes into a long explain of the Ludwig/Obama connection (which he has posted to at least three different sites). Then he is shown that they don’t have the same ss# and you can almost feel how letdown Kerchner is by that info. It also shows that he cannot even figure out how to use the SSDI (death index). Amazing.

  57. avatar
    nc1 March 16, 2011 at 5:38 am #

    jamese777:
    Doc C:
    Do you think that President Obama could use the exact same method as “Danae” to obtain a certified copy of his 1961 Certificate of Live Birth”?

    LOL.

    He could fire general McChrystal, he could sign orders to deploy troops to a war but you doubt that he could obtain a certified copy of the original (long form) birth certificate.

    Who would deny such a request – Onaka or Abercrombie?

    There is a simple reason why we have not seen this document – it does not exist. The official birthplace story is just another lie.

    Abercrombie told us – there is something “actually written down” as a proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    Magic words: Unattended birth registration by a relative.

  58. avatar
    G March 16, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    nc1: LOL.
    He could fire general McChrystal, he could sign orders to deploy troops to a war but you doubt that he could obtain a certified copy of the original (long form) birth certificate.
    Who would deny such a request – Onaka or Abercrombie?
    There is a simple reason why we have not seen this document – it does not exist. The official birthplace story is just another lie.
    Abercrombie told us – there is something “actually written down” as a proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.
    Magic words: Unattended birth registration by a relative.

    NC1 – You are nothing but a sad, delusional broken record who lives in your own fantasy world, completely detatched from actual reality.

    Sorry, but the COLB is ALL Obama needs. He provided that years ago and everything confirms his story. He doesn’t need any further documentation than that as it already confirms born in HONOLULU, HI and therefore NBC. End of story.

    Despite all fake concern troll attempts, the “long form birth certificate” is a dead issue and a red herring. Not one single person – not Danae nor anyone else has been able to prove that you can still get a certified “long form” from HI. So that is just a myth.

    Your magic words nonsense reveals the truth about you. Magic isn’t real. Neither are your delusiional fantasies. Now go chase a leprachaun in your make-believe world. In the real world, President Obama is busy doing his job and will continue to do so until either 2013 or 2017.

  59. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 16, 2011 at 10:24 am #

    nc1: LOL. He could fire general McChrystal, he could sign orders to deploy troops to a war but you doubt that he could obtain a certified copy of the original (long form) birth certificate. Who would deny such a request – Onaka or Abercrombie?There is a simple reason why we have not seen this document – it does not exist. The official birthplace story is just another lie. Abercrombie told us – there is something “actually written down” as a proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Magic words: Unattended birth registration by a relative.

    You haven’t seen it because you don’t have to see it. No president has given their birth certificate to the public. Obama forcing the governor to break state law would be a violation of the 10th amendment. An unattended birth registration would still need a doctor to see the baby and sign off on it. There’s no way that the Obamas would have been able to come from Kenya in 3 days and have this done. So again your false narrative falls apart just as badly is your “the database was hacked” claim

  60. avatar
    Black Lion March 16, 2011 at 10:42 am #

    From the Post and Fail….

    Now to the Birther 3 Card Monte:

    The so-called blunder of Hawaiian Governor Abercrombie in January 2011 of publicly seeking a way to make Obama’s Long Form Birth Certificate available to the public was no accident. Nor was the forced resignation of Dr. Neal Palafox, the well-respected physician Abercrombie had chosen to replace Chiyome Fukino.

    Abercrombie floated a trial balloon. The press, the Birthers and WND all took the bait. The Dealer had “opened the gate” to the card game, and everybody rushed in. If there was a blunder, it was the initial appointment by Abercrombie of Palafox to the post.

    It is my opinion that once Abercrombie found out that Palafax was a man of integrity, he had to go. Palafox would have ruined the game, revealing that the Dealer was a cheat. As it stands now, the entire Department of Health is left with no head, no accountability, and under the direct charge of department bureaucrats.

    The setup for the 3 Card Monte is now in place for the 2012 election cycle:

    As alluded earlier, Abercrombie is the Dealer. The missing card is the COLB Long Form Birth Certificate. The general public has become the Marks. And the naïve Birthers and the mainstream press are the Shills, egging-on the Dealer to flip the card over and show it to us.

    And we will be shown, alright, at a time of the Dealer’s choosing in the 2012 election cycle as candidate Obama makes a big-splash, full-core press event of registering as a 2012 official candidate.

    The Dealer will turn over the card and – what do you know—Obama was born in Hawaii after all.

    Result: The Birthers are made to look like kooks again, the public dismisses the whole Birther story, Constitutional questions are ignored, the WND billboards come down, and Obama is up ten points in the polls.

    How can this 3 Card Monte be stopped? The answer is simple: The Birther Movement must unite as quickly as possible to secure state laws requiring credential validation and investigative authority to as many states’ Secretaries of State as they can.

    If the Obama crowd can, year after year, get dead people to vote in Chicago, then it is no big deal to submit as authentic a forged long form COLB.

    Birthers need as many Secretaries of State as can be attained to be empowered with forensic investigative authority to determine the authenticity of any document submitted as genuine. Simply passing laws requiring a birth certificate be shown is not enough. There MUST be legal language giving power to validate the documentation in order to prevent the submission and acceptance of forged credentials.

    Consider this: If laws such as these had been in place in 2008, the outcome of Keyes v Bowen would have been vastly different. CA Secretary of State Bowen would have been forced by law to do her job, and the truth would have become known about candidate Obama.

    I fear this is the last stand for the Birthers. If we cannot enact these laws, then our efforts to get to the truth are finished.

    —————————

    William Lolli is a regular columnist for SanDiego.com. His latest columns with that publication can be found here and here. SanDiego.com chose not to publish his series on the “Birthers” but granted permission for them to be published at The Post & Email. His bio can be found here.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/15/birthers-and-the-3-card-monte/

  61. avatar
    Bovril March 16, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    Ahhhhhh Lolli,

    Interesting little character is our Mr Lolli………..

    He’s only been posting at the San Diego since mid Jan of this year it seems, usual diatribes of the (F)Right

    http://www.sandiego.com/writers/william-lolli?page=1

    A little digging….

    Seems the “published author” as the P+E like to tout, only actually put his imprimatur to a “pimp this software” manual for a single data backup product….in other words product placement and a sales pitch document

    http://www.trafford.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?Book=181120

    Lets see…..what else…..

    His “bio” photo

    http://static-00.sandiego.com/writers/William-Lolli.jpg

    Yet his LinkedIn photo looks somewhat…….”different”

    Here’s his LinkedIn one….strange I could swear I’ve seem that face somewhere before….little bit of the racist peeking through possibly or just rampant hair envy…?

    http://media03.linkedin.com/media/p/2/000/067/31f/33f6196.jpg

    Then there’s his Gun News Contributer stuff……

    http://gunnewsdaily.com/index.php/contributor-commentaries?layout=default

    Well lookie lookie, what do we see, 2/3 the way down a very familiar name….

    http://gunnewsdaily.com/index.php/contributor-commentaries/170-kerchner-v-obama-on-its-way-to-appeal

    Le Putz in all his (in)glory

    Birferstan is soooooooooo incestuous…… 8-)

  62. avatar
    nc1 March 16, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): You haven’t seen it because you don’t have to see it.No president has given their birth certificate to the public.Obama forcing the governor to break state law would be a violation of the 10th amendment.An unattended birth registration would still need a doctor to see the baby and sign off on it. There’s no way that the Obamas would have been able to come from Kenya in 3 days and have this done.So again your false narrative falls apart just as badly is your “the database was hacked” claim

    A person has a right to obtain their original birth certificate. A contradictory claim is BS.

    Obama’s birth registration was not completed properly in 1961. That is why Hawaii DoH plays the game of hiding the registration number 10641. Without dates and registration numbers the list presented to the public as a birth index is worthless. A late birth registration could be slipped into a legitimate list and you would not know about it.

    The original handwritten list from 1961 would tell us the truth. It has been hidden from those seeking this information.

  63. avatar
    G March 16, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    nc1: A person has a right to obtain their original birth certificate. A contradictory claim is BS.

    Prove it then. You can’t, can you?

    And don’t come back here until you do.

  64. avatar
    Majority Will March 16, 2011 at 12:17 pm #

    G: Prove it then.You can’t, can you?

    And don’t come back here until you do.

    Birthers have zero respect for privacy laws and U.S. law in general but they would undoubtedly FREAK OUT if their privacy rights were ever violated. More birther irony.

    Isn’t it amazing how an arrogant, anonymous, delusional birther expects people to believe in obvious myths and baseless speculation over the publicly known and responsible administrative authorities who respect the law?

    Gee whiz, that’s a real tough choice. ;-)

    By the way, what is the magic number of posts needed for a lie to transform into truth?

  65. avatar
    nc1 March 16, 2011 at 12:21 pm #

    G: Prove it then.You can’t, can you?

    And don’t come back here until you do.

    We can ask for an intelligence file government assembled about us but we cannot obtain the original birth certificate, right?

    http://www.getmyfbifile.com

  66. avatar
    Majority Will March 16, 2011 at 12:30 pm #

    Re: Get my FBI file dot com

    “The fine print: Our attorneys told us to tell you that this site is for informational and entertainment purposes and is not meant to provide legal advice.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! !

    Whew.

    I don’t think birthers can actually grasp the concept of credible evidence.

    Is it an inherited genetic flaw? Or the result of secret government experiments?

  67. avatar
    G March 16, 2011 at 12:54 pm #

    nc1: We can ask for an intelligence file government assembled about us but we cannot obtain the original birth certificate, right? http://www.getmyfbifile.com

    Correct, you cannot.

    Let me put this in simple terms for you, since you seem to have such a problem understanding the basics of the english language and what words mean.

    The government keeps track of births. The ORIGINAL is THEIR record. It just happens to contain info about an individual, but THEY OWN it and THEY are responsible for maintaining it.

    You can request a COPY of the info they have on you, but all you are entitled to is a copy. If you want an OFFICIAL COPY (i.e. certified by them as true), you get it in whatever format they CURRENTLY CHOSE to release that information to you.

    In the case of HI, that has been the COLB for well over a decade.

    You seem to have this obsessive hang-up on an “original”. Gee, what do you think would happen if the government gave away its “original” copy to you or someone else?

    Guess what…they would no longer have the “original” in their records any more, would they? There is only ONE “original”. Once you give that out, it is gone and you have no control over if it gets damaged or lost.

    Therefore it is completely nonsensical to talk about giving out an “original” to ANYONE. The whole point of the government having a records department on such things is that they are RESPONSIBLE for MAINTAINING that info. In order to do that, they must always keep full, secure control over any “original” documents under their purview.

  68. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 16, 2011 at 2:15 pm #

    nc1: A person has a right to obtain their original birth certificate. A contradictory claim is BS.Obama’s birth registration was not completed properly in 1961. That is why Hawaii DoH plays the game of hiding the registration number 10641. Without dates and registration numbers the list presented to the public as a birth index is worthless. A late birth registration could be slipped into a legitimate list and you would not know about it.The original handwritten list from 1961 would tell us the truth. It has been hidden from those seeking this information.

    This is an incorrect assumption on your part. The original is placed in a vault that the State keeps. No one ever gets to see their original. There is an even longer form that is kept at the state which has even more information on it including something like blood type and other additional birth information. The only thing you get is a copy of that certificate. The state of Hawaii hasn’t issued a long form in over a decade. Most states don’t release long forms anymore. Take for instance Arizona which doesn’t issue long form certificates to anyone born after 1989. Does this mean that the births past 1989 were filled out improperly? No.

    Again you make claims that have no basis in reality and try to claim them as fact. There is no proof that Obama’s birth certificate wasn’t filled out in 1961. There is no “game” of hiding the birth registration, you are just not entitled to it as you have no need to know.

    You have no proof that a “late registration” was slipped into the birth index. Again you make claims that can’t be substantiated.

  69. avatar
    Joey March 16, 2011 at 2:22 pm #

    nc1: LOL.

    He could fire general McChrystal, he could sign orders to deploy troops to a war but you doubt that he could obtain a certified copy of the original (long form) birth certificate.

    Who would deny such a request – Onaka or Abercrombie?

    There is a simple reason why we have not seen this document – it does not exist. The official birthplace story is just another lie.

    Abercrombie told us – there is something “actually written down” as a proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    Magic words: Unattended birth registration by a relative.

    Firing General McChrystal is within the purview of the Commander-in-Chief, as is signing deployment orders. Unilaterally overruling state law is not within the purview of a Commander-in-Chief and more importantly, President Obama is having too much fun using birthers as the butt of his jokes and forcing his most likely Republican opponents for the next election to go on the record as “birthers” or non-birthers.
    Also, as a former Attorney-at-Law, Obama must be enjoying winning every lawsuit on this issue, especially the 13 wins at the Supreme Court of the United States.
    For the historical record, President Eisenhower was a home birth and he did not have a birth certificate until he was 62 years old. Then his brother David arranged for Ike to get a birth certificate on David Eisenhower’s testimony to a notary public alone.
    If Barack Obama was an unattended birth delivered by a hippie midwife on a beach on the North Shore of Oahu, he’s still BORN IN THE USA!!!

  70. avatar
    y_p_w March 16, 2011 at 2:58 pm #

    GTherefore it is completely nonsensical to talk about giving out an “original” to ANYONE.The whole point of the government having a records department on such things is that they are RESPONSIBLE for MAINTAINING that info.In order to do that, they must always keep full, secure control over any “original” documents under their purview.

    Well – in California the government records system produces vital records at multiple levels – state, county, and sometimes city – likely with custody of the original BC file being handed off in steps. I’ve gotten a BC for the same relative at both a city and county office. I suspect the way they did it was for each office to scan the original document before passing it off to the next government agency. If that’s the way they do it, I suspect they could even have the original form destroyed once an electronic facsimile is stored.

    I don’t know if it will ever go so far as what my bank does. They simply scan images (front and back) of cancelled checks and shred them.

    And of course full electronic records muddies the waters in what “originial” means.

  71. avatar
    Joey March 16, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    The US Constitution requires three pieces of information to qualify under Article II, Section 1: age 35 and over; birth in the United States, and 14 years residence in the US.
    An official state or county birth document provides two of those pieces of information: date of birth and place of birth.
    Barack Obama has a perfectly legitimate, certified and authenticated birth document from the state of Hawaii which the state’s former Governor, former Director of Health and Registrar of Vital Statistics have all verified which says that he was born at 7:24 pm on August 4, 1961 in the City of Honolulu, in the County of Honolulu, on the Island of Oahu, in the state of Hawaii.
    The information on the Obama birth record is further corroborated by two birth announcements for him appearing in the August 13th and August 14th editions of the Honolulu Advertiser and the Honolulu Star-Bulliten documenting that the Health Bureau recorded the birth of a son to Mr. and Mrs Barack H. Obama of 6085 Kalanianaole Highway, Honolulu on August 4th.
    In 93 adjudicated attempts to impeach the above information in a court of law, no plaintiff has yet been successful, including 13 attempts at the US Supreme Court.
    “The President was, in fact, born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu. And that’s just a fact. It’s been established, he was born here.”–Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI).
    “The state of Hawaii says that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives (R-OH).

  72. avatar
    G March 16, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    y_p_w: Well – in California the government records system produces vital records at multiple levels – state, county, and sometimes city – likely with custody of the original BC file being handed off in steps. I’ve gotten a BC for the same relative at both a city and county office. I suspect the way they did it was for each office to scan the original document before passing it off to the next government agency. If that’s the way they do it, I suspect they could even have the original form destroyed once an electronic facsimile is stored.I don’t know if it will ever go so far as what my bank does. They simply scan images (front and back) of cancelled checks and shred them.And of course full electronic records muddies the waters in what “originial” means.

    As automation efforts continue, many places are converting “original documents” to scanned electronic ones and then shredding the paper source. In a lot of situations, new records might be entered directly into an electronic database and no paper copy “original” ever needs to be created in the first place.

    This is a trend that has been going on for a long time with recordkeeping – in both the public and private sectors and which will continue.

    Whatever the current printing format is for producing a particular physical record from electronic database information – that is what will be provided and certified when physical copies are requested or sent out. The term “original” would no longer even be relevant in such situations.

    Those organizations that maintain such info will still be in charge of doing so. The difference with electronic data is that they are in charge of ensuring the integrity of those database records and maintaining appropriate backup and disaster recovery procedures to retain them as well as appropriate IT security procedures to protect their access and distribution.

  73. avatar
    nc1 March 17, 2011 at 1:44 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): This is an incorrect assumption on your part.The original is placed in a vault that the State keeps.No one ever gets to see their original.There is an even longer form that is kept at the state which has even more information on it including something like blood type and other additional birth information.The only thing you get is a copy of that certificate.The state of Hawaii hasn’t issued a long form in over a decade.Most states don’t release long forms anymore.Take for instance Arizona which doesn’t issue long form certificates to anyone born after 1989.Does this mean that the births past 1989 were filled out improperly?No.

    Again you make claims that have no basis in reality and try to claim them as fact.There is no proof that Obama’s birth certificate wasn’t filled out in 1961.There is no “game” of hiding the birth registration, you are just not entitled to it as you have no need to know.

    You have no proof that a “late registration” was slipped into the birth index.Again you make claims that can’t be substantiated.

    ===================================================================

    There is no law preventing the DoH from releasing the full birth registration index. Given the fact that Abercrombie is on the record saying that he wanted to prove birthers wrong and eliminate potential reelection issue, it is very suspicious that he stopped talking about it.
    There is no legitimate reason to deny access to this informatoin. It is trivial stuff for a person claiming birth in a US hospital: Date and birth registration number.

    You ought to read the UIPA law, particularly the section explaining the reason for having the law in the first place.

  74. avatar
    nc1 March 17, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    Majority Will:
    Re: Get my FBI file dot com

    “The fine print: Our attorneys told us to tell you that this site is for informational and entertainment purposes and is not meant to provide legal advice.”

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! !

    Whew.

    I don’t think birthers can actually grasp the concept of credible evidence.

    Is it an inherited genetic flaw? Or the result of secret government experiments?

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/background-checks/background_checks

  75. avatar
    Daniel March 17, 2011 at 2:22 am #

    nc1: There is no law preventing the DoH from releasing the full birth registration index. Given the fact that Abercrombie is on the record saying that he wanted to prove birthers wrong and eliminate potential reelection issue, it is very suspicious that he stopped talking about it.

    Too soon Nc1. Nobody has had time to forget that you tried flogging this crap here before.

  76. avatar
    nc1 March 17, 2011 at 3:20 am #

    Daniel: Too soon Nc1. Nobody has had time to forget that you tried flogging this crap here before.

    ===================================================================

    I understand that governmant transparency is crap for you.

    How Should the UIPA Be Interpreted?

    The Legislature pronounced that it is the policy of this State to conduct government business as openly as possible while protecting the right of privacy embodied in our State Constitution. Thus, Part I of the UIPA requires that the UIPA be applied and construed to promote its underlying purposes and policies, which are:
    (1) To promote the public interest in disclosure;
    (2) To provide for accurate, relevant, timely and complete records;
    (3) To enhance government accountability;
    (4) To make government accountable to individuals in the collection, use, and dissemination of information relating to them; and
    (5) To balance the individual privacy interest and the public interest, allowing access unless disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Given this direction that the UIPA be interpreted to promote open government, any doubt regarding disclosure of a record should likely be resolved in favor of access.”

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/UIPABooklet-PDF.pdf

    If Obama disclosed a legitimate copy of COLB, there is absolutely no excuse for DOH to avoid confirmation of the full birth registration index. They would only be confirming the information already disclosed by Obama. The spirit of the law is clear – public interest is of prime importance for the functioning of democratic government.

  77. avatar
    Lupin March 17, 2011 at 4:06 am #

    nc1 has had no problem with all the lying and cheating and secretive and downright awful presidents in the past because THEY WERE WHITE. That’s the natural order of things.

    A black man is elected and nc1’s mental world topples; some kind of rationale must absolutely be found — it has to exist — to invalidate this challenge to his worldview.

    Hence nc1 would come up with any and all kind of rubbish rather than face up to the truth.

  78. avatar
    The Magic M March 17, 2011 at 5:44 am #

    > The original handwritten list from 1961 would tell us the truth.

    Awwww, what ever happened to the “if he just shows us his long-form BC, we will all be satisfied” tune the birfers used to sing?

    Now you want more “original handwritten” things from all over the place.
    What then? Will you demand personal access to the “original handwritten list”, together with a handful of forensic experts to check if it hasn’t been written with ink not available before 1970?
    And if that list is evaluated as “not forged”, will you then claim that you want to know who wrote it and demand that person’s sworn testimony he was never “told” to enter information that didn’t belong there?

    It just goes to show that the only field where you’re actually using your brains in a (kinda) productive way is the inventiveness with which you come up with ever more ideas where there could be “foul play” and what documents you need to be “absolutely sure, this time, I swear, bro!”…

  79. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 17, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    nc1: ===================================================================There is no law preventing the DoH from releasing the full birth registration index. Given the fact that Abercrombie is on the record saying that he wanted to prove birthers wrong and eliminate potential reelection issue, it is very suspicious that he stopped talking about it.There is no legitimate reason to deny access to this informatoin. It is trivial stuff for a person claiming birth in a US hospital: Date and birth registration number.You ought to read the UIPA law, particularly the section explaining the reason for having the law in the first place.

    Ahh lets keep moving those goal posts NC1. You want confirmations of confirmations confirming something that is confirmed. The is no law saying that you should be given “full access” to the “full birth registration index”. You have no right to know.

  80. avatar
    nc1 March 17, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    Lupin:
    nc1 has had no problem with all the lying and cheating and secretive and downright awful presidents in the past because THEY WERE WHITE. That’s the natural order of things.

    A black man is elected and nc1′s mental world topples; some kind of rationale must absolutely be found — it has to exist — to invalidate this challenge to his worldview.

    Hence nc1 would come up with any and all kind of rubbish rather than face up to the truth.

    I understand that you have no arguments in this debate.

    You ought to be more concerned about improving racial relationships in France. Once you resolve those, come here and lecture US citizens.

  81. avatar
    The Magic M March 17, 2011 at 11:45 am #

    > You want confirmations of confirmations

    Not for the first time. Remember the birfers asking for proof that Obama requested his COLB from Hawaii, like application documents, receipt confirming COLB being received by Obama etc.

    That’s where it gets really weird – it’s like a police officer first asking for your ID and then for proof you’ve applied for the very ID he’s seeing.

  82. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 17, 2011 at 11:50 am #

    nc1: I understand that you have no arguments in this debate. You ought to be more concerned about improving racial relationships in France. Once you resolve those, come here and lecture US citizens.

    You should be more concerned with getting more versed in the law of your adopted country before coming here to lecture those who grew up under these laws about what you think the law says

  83. avatar
    nc1 March 17, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    The Magic M:
    > The original handwritten list from 1961 would tell us the truth.

    Awwww, what ever happened to the “if he just shows us his long-form BC, we will all be satisfied” tune the birfers used to sing?

    Now you want more “original handwritten” things from all over the place.
    What then? Will you demand personal access to the “original handwritten list”, together with a handful of forensic experts to check if it hasn’t been written with ink not available before 1970?
    And if that list is evaluated as “not forged”, will you then claim that you want to know who wrote it and demand that person’s sworn testimony he was never “told” to enter information that didn’t belong there?

    It just goes to show that the only field where you’re actually using your brains in a (kinda) productive way is the inventiveness with which you come up with ever more ideas where there could be “foul play” and what documents you need to be “absolutely sure, this time, I swear, bro!”…

    The long form birth certificate is preferable document proving Obama’s birthplace. Since its release depends on Obama, public will not see it, that is why I mentioned birth registration index – it is supposed to be in public domain.

    I don’t think that government officials would forge document for Obama – the birth index computer generated list is not a forgery. However, it was designed to hide the fact that Obama’s birth was not registered in 1961 but later on. DoH officials have cover for their actions.

    That is why they do not want to open books for inspection of dates and registration numbers.

  84. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 17, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    nc1: The long form birth certificate is preferable document proving Obama’s birthplace.

    Are you contending that this may show something other than “Honolulu, Hawai’i”? Because if it doesn’t then it contains no additional relevant information.

  85. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 17, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    nc1: I don’t think that government officials would forge document for Obama – the birth index computer generated list is not a forgery. However, it was designed to hide the fact that Obama’s birth was not registered in 1961 but later on. DoH officials have cover for their actions.

    So they wouldn’t forge a document, but they were able to place false birth announcements in all of the archived copies of two newspapers…

  86. avatar
    Majority Will March 17, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Since birther’s petulant demands and ignorance of the law are entirely irrelevant, what a birther deems as preferable is pathetic and laughable.

    And since a deranged birther’s petulant demands and ignorance of the law are entirely irrelevant, what a birther deems as preferable is pathetic and laughable.

    That includes misguided and bigoted birther state reps and sad, little trolls with more spare time than common sense.

  87. avatar
    nc1 March 17, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    Slartibartfast: Are you contending that this may show something other than “Honolulu, Hawai’i”?Because if it doesn’t then it contains no additional relevant information.

    There is no Kapiolani Hospital generated long form birth certificate – the original birth certificate on file would show that the official birthplace story is a lie. The “actually written down” was the phrase used by Abercrombie to describe the proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Think about it.

  88. avatar
    nc1 March 17, 2011 at 12:13 pm #

    Slartibartfast: So they wouldn’t forge a document, but they were able to place false birth announcements in all of the archived copies of two newspapers…

    Unattended birth registration by a relative explains the newspaper announcements. It does not mean that he was born in Hawaii – relatives reported it initially (the actually written down thing as reported by Abercrombie)

    Registration was not completed in 1961 but sometimes later. That is why the DoH is playing the game of hiding the registration number and date corresponding to Obama’s birth registration index.

  89. avatar
    obsolete March 17, 2011 at 12:19 pm #

    nc1: There is no Kapiolani Hospital generated long form birth certificate – the original birth certificate on file would show that the official birthplace story is a lie.

    Further nc1:
    “It’s all just a wild hunch I have- If Hawaii opens themselves up for me to search all their records and archives, I’m sure I can find something to use against the scary black man.”

  90. avatar
    Lupin March 17, 2011 at 12:25 pm #

    nc1: I understand that you have no arguments in this debate.

    Actually you’re the one without any “arguments” as far as I can tell.

    Every point you’ve made has been thoroughly debunked here a million times. Right now, you’re merely parroting points you’ve made already.

    And you still have not given us any proof that you cared about such issues before Obama was elected — which brands you as a bigot.

    We’re still waiting for you to offer any kind of evidence.

    President Sarkozy is of Jewish / Hungarian origin and according to polls only enjoys a 30% favorable opinion rate. That means 70% don’t like him. Yet no one has ever questioned his personal background. It simply is not an issue.

    President Obama is far more popular; yet delusional bigots like you openly make up unbelievable conspiracies to deny his legitimacy. You’re the shame of America and its ideals.

  91. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 17, 2011 at 12:25 pm #

    nc1: There is no Kapiolani Hospital generated long form birth certificate – the original birth certificate on file would show that the official birthplace story is a lie.The “actually written down” was the phrase used by Abercrombie to describe the proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.Think about it.

    Until you can come up with a theory which fits ALL of the facts better than the ‘official’ story, you’re out of luck. Here’s a (partial) list of things which must be explained:

    1. Where he was born (if not Hawai’i)

    2. Newspaper birth announcements

    3. COLB ‘date filed’

    4. Statements by Hawai’i officials

    5. Images on the web

    6. Means, motive, and opportunity for any travel Dr. Dunham and Mr. Obama were required to do

    Once you’ve got a theory that explains all of the facts, you need to get some evidence for it (and this is a requirement for discovery, not something you get to do via discovery…) that outweighs the evidence that supports the ‘official’ theory (good luck coming up with something which is more credible (Constitutionally speaking) than the full faith and credit of the state of Hawai’i…). Until you can do all that (which cannot, in my opinion, be done because your theory will inevitably be wrong) then you are just another sad incompetent posting your lies and fantasies on the intertubes…

  92. avatar
    gorefan March 17, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    nc1: The “actually written down” was the phrase used by Abercrombie to describe the proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii.

    Or the written down could be the original handwritten 1961 index book.

  93. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 17, 2011 at 12:28 pm #

    nc1: There is no Kapiolani Hospital generated long form birth certificate – the original birth certificate on file would show that the official birthplace story is a lie. The “actually written down” was the phrase used by Abercrombie to describe the proof of Obama’s birth in Hawaii. Think about it.

    Hospitals dont general long form certified birth certificates. Speculation on your part. You assume it must show that without any actual proof on your part

  94. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 17, 2011 at 12:31 pm #

    nc1: The long form birth certificate is preferable document proving Obama’s birthplace. Since its release depends on Obama, public will not see it, that is why I mentioned birth registration index – it is supposed to be in public domain. I don’t think that government officials would forge document for Obama – the birth index computer generated list is not a forgery. However, it was designed to hide the fact that Obama’s birth was not registered in 1961 but later on. DoH officials have cover for their actions. That is why they do not want to open books for inspection of dates and registration numbers.

    So you’ve pulled yourself away from the claim that hackers put his name in there?

  95. avatar
    Scientist March 17, 2011 at 12:57 pm #

    nc1: Registration was not completed in 1961 but sometimes later

    Here is Ronald Reagan’s birth certificate http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ag4U35aNZII/TU3K6qGaRgI/AAAAAAAAGOg/tGvtprphRG0/s1600/rrbc.jpg
    He was born in 1911. Do you know when the certificate was signed by the doctor? 1942.

  96. avatar
    Joey March 17, 2011 at 1:20 pm #

    Scientist: Here is Ronald Reagan’s birth certificate http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ag4U35aNZII/TU3K6qGaRgI/AAAAAAAAGOg/tGvtprphRG0/s1600/rrbc.jpg
    He was born in 1911.Do you know when the certificate was signed by the doctor? 1942.

    And lest we forget, Dwight David Eisenhower’s birth certificate was filed 62 years after his birth: A recently-discovered 1952 Texas newspaper clipping, from The Denison, Texas Herald and The Sherman, aTexas Democrat, describes a birth certificate controversy which involved then-U.S. Presidential candidate Gen. Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower. Eisenhower went on to become the 34th President of the United States, serving two terms before leaving office in 1961.

    Eisenhower was allegedly born on October 14, 1890 in Denison, Texas. After receiving a letter from an undisclosed New York law firm during the 1952 presidential campaign, Harold Schmitzer, the Denison City Secretary replied that Eisenhower did not have a birth certificate filed with with the Grayson County Clerk’s Office. Lonnie F. Roberts, having read a Denison newspaper article that described Eisenhower’s unrecorded birth, checked with the county clerk’s office in Sherman, Texas to see if there was a recorded birth certificate. The clerk’s office said that there was no such recording.

    Roberts then requested compiled birth information from Gen. Eisenhower through Mamie Eisenhower in Denver, Colorado. The information was entered into a formal, legal birth certificate and sent to Arthur B. Eisenhower (in Kansas City, Missouri) to be notarized as an official witness to the birth. Judge J. N. Dickson (the source of the newspaper archive) signed the certificate which was recorded by County Clerk J.C. Buchanan. Once the certificate was recorded, it was sent back to Mrs. Eisenhower.

    If there ever existed a further public controversy regarding Eisenhower’s birthplace, it was definitely quashed. However, sufficient biographical accounts have been written in an attempt to legitimize Dwight D. Eisenhower’s birth in Denison, Texas, a fact that few dare dispute — that is, until now.

    Eisenhower’s ’smoking cannon’: A Texas newspaper article

    The following is a verbatim transcription of the aforementioned article found in a Denison, TX newspaper, “Ike Gets Birth Certificate; Filed In Courthouse Here,” whose publisher/author is/are unknown:

    Ike Gets Birth Certificate; Filed In Courthouse Here’

    ‘Dwight David Eisenhower now has a birth certificate officially recorded in the office of the County Clerk, Grayson County, Texas. The certificate was signed Wednesday by County Judge J.N. Dickson and recorded by County Clerk J.C. Buchanan. It is the first official notation of Eisenhower’s birth Oct. 14, 1890, in Denison.

    Based on the historical precedents of delayed filing and creation of long form, original birth certificates for Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan, Barack Hussein Obama II should be able to have a long form birth certificate created for him in 2012!

  97. avatar
    Scientist March 17, 2011 at 1:33 pm #

    Joey: Based on the historical precedents of delayed filing and creation of long form, original birth certificates for Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan, Barack Hussein Obama II should be able to have a long form birth certificate created for him in 2012

    Few, if any, of the Presidents who served before WW II had birth certificates at all, since they weren’t routinely issued until the latter part of the 19th century. Isn’t it iinteresttiing that the birthers want to make a requirement out of something that 80 or 90% of all Presidents never had.

  98. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 17, 2011 at 1:36 pm #

    Joey: Based on the historical precedents of delayed filing and creation of long form, original birth certificates for Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan, Barack Hussein Obama II should be able to have a long form birth certificate created for him in 2012!

    I would love to see the birthers try to explain why such a certificate would be unacceptable without throwing Ronnie and Ike under the bus (or admitting their bigotry…).

  99. avatar
    Joey March 17, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Scientist: Few, if any, of the Presidents who served before WW II had birth certificates at all, since they weren’t routinely issued until the latter part of the 19th century.Isn’t it iinteresttiing that the birthers want to make a requirement out of something that 80 or 90% of all Presidents never had.

    My gut tells me that former Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has told the Republican National Committee that the birth certificate issue is a sure loser for Republicans and that Obama is setting them up. That is why all these birther bills are failing in state legislatures.
    I still can find no reason why a Republican Governor who wants to be Hawaii’s next Republican Senator would lie about Obama being born at Kapiolani when she knows full well that Obama’s birth records can be released at any time under a subpoena.
    Why would Linda Lingle risk her political future for Obama’s sake? It doesn’t make sense.

  100. avatar
    Judge Mental March 17, 2011 at 2:35 pm #

    Joey: My gut tells me that former Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle has told the Republican National Committee that the birth certificate issue is a sure loser for Republicans and that Obama is setting them up. That is why all these birther bills are failing in state legislatures.I still can find no reason why a Republican Governor who wants to be Hawaii’s next Republican Senator would lie about Obama being born at Kapiolani when she knows full well that Obama’s birth records can be released at any time under a subpoena.Why would Linda Lingle risk her political future for Obama’s sake? It doesn’t make sense.

    You might very well be right about advice/opinions that Lingle has offered being acted upon to some degree in Republican strategy but I very much doubt that it’s reasonable to assume that such advice from Lingle is the proximate cause of state birther bills failing. It might have some kind of peripheral influence but there are surely far more obvious and mundane fundamental reasons for such failures.

    LOL….dare I say it, but it might be almost birtherish (Occam’s Razor and all that) to buy into the notion at this stage that Lingle’s inside advice about Obama’s strategy would have as much effect on state birther bill failure as such tangible things as the state’s realisation of the inevitibility of such legislation running smack into a very solid brick wall with ‘unconstitutional’ scrawled on it in large spray paint.

    No offence intended, just a different view of probability.

  101. avatar
    Joey March 17, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    Judge Mental: You might very well be right about advice/opinions that Lingle has offered being acted upon to some degree in Republican strategy but I very much doubt that it’s reasonable to assume that such advice from Lingle is the proximate cause of state birther bills failing. It might have some kind of peripheral influence but there are surely far more obvious and mundane fundamental reasons for such failures.

    LOL….dare I say it, but it might be almost birtherish (Occam’s Razor and all that) to buy into the notion at this stage that Lingle’s inside advice about Obama’s strategy would have as much effect on state birther bill failure as such tangible things as the state’s realisation of the inevitibility of such legislation running smack into a very solid brick wall with unconstitutional’ scrawled on it in large spray paint.

    No offence intended, just a different view of probability.

    I hear ya and there’s no reason for it to be an “either/or” situation when it could be a “both.” Conservative state politicians don’t want to alienate “birther nation” by refusing to promulgate their legislation but then, as you say, they run smack dab up against constitutional reality and they can then tell the birthers: “well, I tried.”

  102. avatar
    JoZeppy March 17, 2011 at 3:16 pm #

    nc1: There is no law preventing the DoH from releasing the full birth registration index.

    Saying it over and over doesn’t change the fact that there is a law preventing it. The law says what information has to be publicly released. The law gives discretion to disclose more information to the public to the director, but the director has not done so. That doesn’t mean the Director has authority to go case by case and decide what to release on a particular person. He would have to decide to release registration numbers to the public for all requests. Now there are probably good policy reasons why they don’t do so. Doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that the policy is set what they release. Just becaue you want them to change the policy doesn’t mean they should. The fact that they don’t change policy to satisfy yout paranoia also is not evidence of anything, except of the fact that they don’t have a compelling reason to do so. The reality is that they release everything that under current policy and law is released. They released everything they were releasing before Obama was President, and everything they would release for any other person. Your nutty theories about the registration numbers is just not a compelling reason to deviate from the norm or change state policy.

  103. avatar
    JoZeppy March 17, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    nc1: Unattended birth registration by a relative explains the newspaper announcements. It does not mean that he was born in Hawaii – relatives reported it initially (the actually written down thing as reported by Abercrombie) Registration was not completed in 1961 but sometimes later. That is why the DoH is playing the game of hiding the registration number and date corresponding to Obama’s birth registration index.

    First off, even it was an unattended birth registration, guess what? It’s still evidence of him being born in Hawaii. So you as you tend to be most of the time, it does mean he was born in Hawaii.

    Secondly, you have no evidence whatsoever that the registration was not completed in 1961. I can make stuff up too when I don’t need to provide any evidence. But in the reality based world, we don’t waste our time debating things people make up.

    Thirid, DoH isn’t plaing a hiding game. Registriation numbers and dates are not released for anyone. That is current policy. That was the policy before Obama was President. Get it through your head that you are the one asking for them to deviate from the norm, not the otherway around.

  104. avatar
    Joey March 17, 2011 at 4:12 pm #

    Both Honolulu new

    JoZeppy: First off, even it was an unattended birth registration, guess what?It’s still evidence of him being born in Hawaii.So you as you tend to be most of the time, it does mean he was born in Hawaii.

    Secondly, you have no evidence whatsoever that the registration was not completed in 1961.I can make stuff up too when I don’t need to provide any evidence.But in the reality based world, we don’t waste our time debating things people make up.

    Thirid, DoH isn’t plaing a hiding game.Registriation numbers and dates are not released for anyone.That is current policy.That was the policy before Obama was President.Get it through your head that you are the one asking for them to deviate from the norm, not the otherway around.

    Both Honolulu newspapers have confirmed that they did not accept birth announcements from family members or friends in 1961. All birth information came directly from the Hawaii Health Bureau and the section of the newspapers where those birth notices appeared was entitled “Health Bureau Statistics.”
    If there was a “delay” in registering the Obama birth, it was a “delay” of a couple of days because the Obama birth was registered with the state on August 8, 1961 and the birth announcements appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961 and in the Honolulu Star-Bulliten on August 14, 1961.
    Contrast that with a 62 year delay in registering the birth of Dwight Eisenhower and a 31 year delay in registering the birth of Ronald Reagan.

  105. avatar
    Scientist March 17, 2011 at 4:22 pm #

    Joey: If there was a “delay” in registering the Obama birth, it was a “delay” of a couple of days because the Obama birth was registered with the state on August 8, 1961 and the birth announcements appeared in the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13, 1961 and in the Honolulu Star-Bulliten on August 14, 1961.
    Contrast that with a 62 year delay in registering the birth of Dwight Eisenhower and a 31 year delay in registering the birth of Ronald Reagan

    If we follow birther requirements, all Presidents prior to the 20th century were ineligible due to no birth certificates (except those born before 1788). All except Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama were ineligible due to not born in hospital. Clinton might have a problem because the name was Blythe, not Clinton. So we’re left with Carter, Bush Jr and Obama. But I’ve never seen birth certificates for Carter and Bush. So in fact, Obama is the ONLY President since Jackson to be eligible.

  106. avatar
    Daniel March 17, 2011 at 4:29 pm #

    JoZeppy to nc1: Saying it over and over doesn’t change the fact

    It doesn’t? Are you sure? But that’s the whole basis of birtherism… the idea that saying something over and over and over will warp time and space and cause shoulda/would/coulda to magically transform into reality.

    I’m not sure if they could survive if the ridiculous_empty_political_rhetoric_reality_transformation_wormhole was somehow…
    LAWWWWST INNNNNN SPAAAAAAAACE

  107. avatar
    sfjeff March 17, 2011 at 5:12 pm #

    NC1

    Would you vote for President Obama if you saw his birth certificate and it said he was born in Hawaii?

  108. avatar
    JoZeppy March 17, 2011 at 6:31 pm #

    nc1: Given this direction that the UIPA be interpreted to promote open government, any doubt regarding disclosure of a record should likely be resolved in favor of access.”

    Except that there is no doubt. Disclosure is clearly prohibited.

  109. avatar
    Scientist March 17, 2011 at 7:45 pm #

    sfjeff: Would you vote for President Obama if you saw his birth certificate and it said he was born in Hawaii?

    The search for thel “pro-Obama birther” is my territory, sir. I am quite certain that nc1 is not one of those mythical creatures. It hates Obama no matter what.

  110. avatar
    Daniel March 17, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    Scientist: It hates Obama no matter what.

    It puts the lotion on it’s skin, or it gets the constitution again.

  111. avatar
    nc1 March 18, 2011 at 5:27 am #

    The Magic M:
    > You want confirmations of confirmations

    Not for the first time. Remember the birfers asking for proof that Obama requested his COLB from Hawaii, like application documents, receipt confirming COLB being received by Obama etc.

    That’s where it gets really weird – it’s like a police officer first asking for your ID and then for proof you’ve applied for the very ID he’s seeing.

    ====================================================================

    Mark Niesse, the AP writer, used the same Hawaii law to get information from DoH about people who were labeled “vexatious requestors”. That is how he got in contact with blogger “butterdezillion”.

    There is nothing strange about asking DoH whether they issued a COLB to Obama. However, the DoH refuse to answer the question.

  112. avatar
    nc1 March 18, 2011 at 5:45 am #

    JoZeppy: Saying it over and over doesn’t change the fact that there is a law preventing it.The law says what information has to be publicly released. The law gives discretion to disclose more information to the public to the director, but the director has not done so.That doesn’t mean the Director has authority to go case by case and decide what to release on a particular person.He would have to decide to release registration numbers to the public for all requests.Now there are probably good policy reasons why they don’t do so.Doesn’t really matter.What does matter is that the policy is set what they release.Just becaue you want them to change the policy doesn’t mean they should.The fact that they don’t change policy to satisfy yout paranoia also is not evidence of anything, except of the fact that they don’t have a compelling reason to do so.The reality is that they release everything that under current policy and law is released.They released everything they were releasing before Obama was President, and everything they would release for any other person.Your nutty theories about the registration numbers is just not a compelling reason to deviate from the norm or change state policy.

    The DoH director decides on case by case basis – nowhere it says that (s)he must release full birth index for all people. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. That is your invention.

    Abercrombie can authorize the release of full birth index without asking Obama, there is clearly a public interest about this information and there is no privacy to protect – after all Obama has published a COLB image. Who would be an injured party if DoH confirmed that Date Filed and registration number shown on COLB are authentic?

    The intent of the UIPA law and its application in a trivial case like this should be clear to anyone, particularly to a person claiming to have a legal background like yourself.

    It is all about winning the case – damn the truth, right?

  113. avatar
    nc1 March 18, 2011 at 5:57 am #

    Joey: And lest we forget, Dwight David Eisenhower’s birth certificate was filed 62 years after his birth: A recently-discovered 1952 Texas newspaper clipping, fromThe Denison, Texas Herald and The Sherman, aTexas Democrat, describes a birth certificate controversy which involved then-U.S. Presidential candidate Gen. Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower. Eisenhower went on to become the 34th President of the United States, serving two terms before leaving office in 1961.

    Eisenhower was allegedly born on October 14, 1890 in Denison, Texas. After receiving a letter from an undisclosed New York law firm during the 1952 presidential campaign, Harold Schmitzer, the Denison City Secretary replied that Eisenhower did not have a birth certificate filed with with the Grayson County Clerk’s Office. Lonnie F. Roberts, having read a Denison newspaper article that described Eisenhower’s unrecorded birth, checked with the county clerk’s office in Sherman, Texas to see if there was a recorded birth certificate. The clerk’s office said that there was no such recording.

    Roberts then requested compiled birth information from Gen. Eisenhower through Mamie Eisenhower in Denver, Colorado. The information was entered into a formal, legal birth certificate and sent to Arthur B. Eisenhower (in Kansas City, Missouri) to be notarized as an official witness to the birth. Judge J. N. Dickson (the source of the newspaper archive) signed the certificate which was recorded by County Clerk J.C. Buchanan. Once the certificate was recorded, it was sent back to Mrs. Eisenhower.

    If there ever existed a further public controversy regarding Eisenhower’s birthplace, it was definitely quashed. However, sufficient biographical accounts have been written in an attempt to legitimize Dwight D. Eisenhower’s birth in Denison, Texas, a fact that few dare dispute — that is, until now.

    Eisenhower’s ’smoking cannon’: A Texas newspaper article

    The following is a verbatim transcription of the aforementioned article found in a Denison, TX newspaper, “Ike Gets Birth Certificate; Filed In Courthouse Here,” whose publisher/author is/areunknown:

    Ike Gets Birth Certificate; Filed In Courthouse Here’

    ‘Dwight David Eisenhower now has a birth certificate officially recorded in the office of the County Clerk, Grayson County, Texas. The certificate was signed Wednesday by County Judge J.N. Dickson and recorded by County Clerk J.C. Buchanan. It is the first official notation of Eisenhower’s birth Oct. 14, 1890, in Denison.

    Based on the historical precedents of delayed filing and creation of long form, original birth certificates for Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan, Barack Hussein Obama II should be able to have a long form birth certificate created for him in 2012!

    You forgot one thing – there is already a long form Kapiolani birth certificate on file in DoH archive – right?

    At least that is the official story – why would Obama need a newly minted birth certificate?

    Could you point out to any reports that either Eisenhauer or any other recent president was born in a foreign country. There are multiple such stories in Obama’s case.

    Was there ever a case prior to 2008 elections that a member of presidential candidate’s political party filed a lawsuit challenging his eligibility for office?

  114. avatar
    Scientist March 18, 2011 at 6:37 am #

    nc1: Could you point out to any reports that either Eisenhauer or any other recent president was born in a foreign country.

    It is a well known fact that Ronald Reagan was born in Holland. He was called “Dutch” Reagan by most of his close friends and even one of his biographies is called “Dutch”. http://www.amazon.com/Dutch-Memoir-Ronald-Edmund-Morris/dp/0394555082

    His birth certificate, filed 31 years after the fact, is totally inadequate to disprove his Netherlandish birth. The State of Illinois must stop covering up this fraud. Reagan must be retroactively stripped of his Presidency and all laws and appointments he made must be overturned.

  115. avatar
    The Magic M March 18, 2011 at 6:46 am #

    > There is nothing strange about asking DoH whether they issued a COLB to Obama. However, the DoH refuse to answer the question.

    Why do they need to when they’ve already confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii?
    Do they need to authorize/back up any statement Obama makes about his birth?

    If you publically state you were born in Kansas, does the Kansas DoH have an obligation to confirm that?

    I know it’s the crank’s way to keep asking questions which have been answered a hundred times and, when the 101st time goes unanswered, make loud claims of “why aren’t they answering?”. That however doesn’t make it less silly.

    > There are multiple such stories in Obama’s case.

    Just because no-one made up stories about Eisenhower does not mean there’s anything more to the Obama nativity that to Eisenhower’s. After all, Eisenhower was not a black man with a Muslim sounding name, so naturally no-one made up stories about him.

    > Was there ever a case prior to 2008 elections that a member of presidential candidate’s political party filed a lawsuit challenging his eligibility for office?

    Doesn’t that make one wonder what makes Obama stand out?
    Remember that you don’t get to create your own evidence. You can’t start by making up stories about where Obama allegedly was born and then use those stories to justify “critical” questions. That’s the same fallacy as “teach the controversy” in the Intelligent Design debate. Cranks making up stories does not create “controversy”.

  116. avatar
    G March 18, 2011 at 6:48 am #

    nc1: There is nothing strange about asking DoH whether they issued a COLB to Obama. However, the DoH refuse to answer the question.

    Which they have every legal right to. Quit whining and move on.

  117. avatar
    G March 18, 2011 at 6:56 am #

    nc1: It is all about winning the case – damn the truth, right?

    Again, you are going back to just being a broken record, in complete denial of every answer that has been given to you on this question, multiple times.

    Face it, this is a simple matter of you not liking the answers you get and refusing to accept reality.

    The only one damning the truth is you, because you refuse to accept it. Why is that, I wonder? What is it about our President, Obama which is just to viseral for you to accept on an emotional level? Why has no other past president invoked such steadfast “curiosity” into their background from you…

    Face it, you are just an angry and whiny bigot that can’t deal with the truth and merely refuses to accept reality. You’ve got no real arguments, so you drone on endlessly, clinging to demands for the same meaningless details to which you are not in any way entitled to and which don’t in any way change the big picture.

    Obama is and will remain president, in full accordance with all of our laws, despite your angry and delusionaly defiant protestations and there’s absolutely no legal basis for you to be able to do anything about it, except vote your choice in the next election. That’s it. End of story.

  118. avatar
    G March 18, 2011 at 7:15 am #

    nc1: You forgot one thing – there is already a long form Kapiolani birth certificate on file in DoH archive – right?

    Who cares. It has been explained endlessly to you that:

    1) the COLB is the official document of the state of HI for birth certificates and has been for well over a decade.
    2) there is absolutely no evidence of any official “long form” being obtained by anyone since the COLB became the official document they release.
    3) original documents are the property of the state and must be maintained by the state…as once they are given out…well, then they would no longer have a copy of the original anymore, would they? *duh*.
    4) The COLB already answers the ONLY relevant issues to NBC – when he was born and that he was born on US soil. HONOLULU, HI is clearly listed there and FULLY answers that qualification. It also clearly shows he’s over age 35. Therefore, eligibility has already been addressed as far as a birth certificate can do so. There is NOTHING that would be different in these regards on any “longer form” records being maintained in archives, so they have absolutely NO additional relevance to the NBC issue.

    nc1: At least that is the official story – why would Obama need a newly minted birth certificate?

    Doesn’t matter. All that matters is that his campaign requested one in 2007 and HI gave them the certified COLB, which is the only document they provide when giving such requests. There is NOTHING unusual nor atypical at all about people requesting either new or additional certified copies of their birth certificate and being provided with whatever current certified form that state provides. Standard procedure. Simple as that.

    nc1: Could you point out to any reports that either Eisenhauer or any other recent president was born in a foreign country. There are multiple such stories in Obama’s case.

    Except there is no real credible evidence that supports any of those stories. Angry bigots making up a bunch of lies and falsehoods doesn’t count. Angry bigots can make up all the lies and make believe stories they want, but it doesn’t affect HI nor the President in reality one bit. Increasing the number or volume of lies has no relevance either. Nonsense is nonsense, no matter how many times you say it. All you’ve shown is that there are a lot of bigots out there detatched from reality who are willing to make up smears because they viscerally can’t accept someone different from themselves.

    nc1: Was there ever a case prior to 2008 elections that a member of presidential candidate’s political party filed a lawsuit challenging his eligibility for office?

    Wow. So Berg, a 9/11 Truther nut and bitter PUMA loser is your whole defense argument? FAIL.

    Just bringing that up only reveals the truth about what is going on here – irrational bigotry from people who can’t accept the notion of a president who is “different” from past presidents in terms of the color of his skin and his name.

    Let’s turn that argument of what it really means and says and direct it back to you: Was there ever a case prior to the 2008 elections where a non-white male with a different sounding name ever had a serious shot at becoming POTUS?

  119. avatar
    Northland10 March 18, 2011 at 7:23 am #

    nc1: Abercrombie can authorize the release of full birth index without asking Obama,

    Just because he could, does not mean he must. If they have the discretion, maybe they just don’t want to waste their time with whiny birthers.

    Silence does not mean their hiding something, silence may just mean their ignoring you. Did you grow up thinking that the boy/girl you had a crush on was hiding something because they did not acknowledge your existence?

  120. avatar
    JoZeppy March 18, 2011 at 8:24 am #

    nc1: The DoH director decides on case by case basis – nowhere it says that (s)he must release full birth index for all people. It is not an all-or-nothing proposition. That is your invention.

    It is as much an invention as your claim that he decides on a case by case basis….except in my case, I can point to the DoH website that says the director has not added any additional items to the list. And I have practice to support my statements.

    nc1: Abercrombie can authorize the release of full birth index without asking Obama, there is clearly a public interest about this information and there is no privacy to protect – after all Obama has published a COLB image. Who would be an injured party if DoH confirmed that Date Filed and registration number shown on COLB are authentic?

    Abercrombie cannot authorize the release of anything. The statute doesn’t give him any authority. There is no public interest in breaking from current policy and practice. It accomplishes nothing. You are a small subset of a very small group that will be never satisified anyway, so why go through the efforts of changing policy? And Obama and by extention, every citizen of Hawaii is injured. What Obama did is irrelevant. When the state violates a person’s privacy right, that person is injured, no matter what you claim, and by extention, every citizen in the state is injured when the state establishes a pattern of changing its privacy policies to cave into a group of extremists.

    nc1: The intent of the UIPA law and its application in a trivial case like this should be clear to anyone, particularly to a person claiming to have a legal background like yourself.

    It is very clear. Sadly it isn’t clear to someone like you. It was never intended to allow people to romp through personal documents. It certainly wasn’t intended to apply in cases where the is anambiguous as to what the state should release. The fact that you want it to mean more is irrelevant.

    nc1: It is all about winning the case – damn the truth, right?

    Perhaps if you came up with the slightest bit of evidence, you might have a point. The truth is every bit of evidence points to him being born in Hawaii. Add to that the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever for an 18 year old Kansas girl in her third trimester to make a long trip to around the world to a third world nation, and then not give birth in the closest city to where her husband’s family (and the international air port) is from, but take another long car trip, to give birth in a city across the countryside. So your claims are highly improbable as well as having no evidentiary support. Damn the truth seems to be entirely your approach. You seem to think you’re entitled to answers based on lies and innuendo, just because you have unreasonable doubts. Well, sorry, you’re just not that special. How about you come up with the slightest bit of real evidence that he was born anywhere but Hawaii. You know, something that would actually be admitted before a court of law. ONE thing. Not lame brained theories. Not hearsay statements from a temp who had no access to the records. Not the rantings of a mad Modovan. Real evidence. Then, perhaps you will be able to say damn the truth. But if we were to cave into your silly requests, we would then be saying “damn the truth.”

  121. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 18, 2011 at 8:30 am #

    nc1: Abercrombie can authorize the release of full birth index without asking Obama, there is clearly a public interest about this information and there is no privacy to protect

    There is not much public interest in certificate numbers beyond a few hard-core conspiracy theorists.

  122. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 18, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    Keith: Doc. You are a professional in this subject matter. A non-certified copy is NOT a certificate.

    “non-certified certificate” is an oxymoron.

    If I show you a photograph of a tree, you might say “that’s not a tree; it’s just a photograph of a tree.” That’s true. In that sense the Danae document is not a birth certificate — it is a photocopy of a birth certificate.

    Since the Danae document is not a certified copy, it’s no good for getting a passport, and it’s not prima facie evidence in court. It’s not a birth certificate, but it is a photocopy of one and if Onaka had signed it, it would be a birth certificate in the usual sense of the word.

  123. avatar
    Bovril March 18, 2011 at 10:52 am #

    Doc,

    Not to be pedantic [stepping straight into pedant mode.... 8-) ] but the analogy is more…

    Q. If I showed you a picture of a couple of leaves and a branches, is that a tree….?

    A. No they are elements of a tree.

    For these purposes, a birth certificate is a certified and printed extract of a very limited set of the entire data universe of the birth records.

    The mystical “long form”is exactly the same in this structure as the COLB. It is a certified extract of SOME of the entire data set AND it has to be certified in manner to demonstrate and bind its provenance, originality and content.

    Without said certification it has only personal interest and not a scintilla of legal validity. In addition, the certification has to meet certain specific minimum requirements of which the seal and signature are only some of the requirements

    As such Danae’s bundle of images is not, never was and never could be a BC/COLB.

    Sorry to get all stolid and stodgy but this point has to hammered into the heads of the Birfoon Tendency. There is not one example available or shown of any other type of BC being available, from Hawai’i, for the last 10 years, other than the one issued to Obama. The sole and singular caveat is the LONGER (not “long form”) BC available solely for native blood Hawai’ns of which Obam is not one.

    If such a document was available why did the Bravo Foxtrot Lt Col Lakin not, even after he tried, get one for his daughter who was born in Hawai’i.

  124. avatar
    JoZeppy March 18, 2011 at 11:08 am #

    nc1…just for you (I thought about this on the drive into work).

    Let’s say your request for the number hits DoH. Normal course of action: it’s not on the list of authorized for release. Request rejected.

    No let’s say the governor requested that DoH take a second look at all Obama related requests, just to see if more info can be released. So you now have a bunch of bureacrats and lawyers sitting around debating.

    Question 1: Are we authorized as law/regulation/policy currently stand to release? No.
    Question 2: Are there exceptions? Well…..maybe…possibly…it’s that whole discretion thing.
    Question 3: Do we have to change a policy/regulation, or can we go case by case? Well, the statute isn’t clear. It ussed to be on the list of items authorized for release, but when the statute was amended, it was not on the list of what has to be released. We have to assume there was a reason for this change (legistlatures don’t change laws if they don’t intended the changes to have any effect), but no one has done the legislative history reseach to find out why.
    Question 4: What is the impact of going either way:
    Policy change: As with any time you change a policy, you face issues with public privacy groups complaining, and suing. The more information out there about private individuals, the easier it is for identity theives…what’s the plus side? Oh, nothing.
    Individual expetion: You’ve just change a simple process of look at the list, release the authorized info, reject anything else. Now you have to start reviewing all requests to see if it merits an exception. You’ve just established a precident that it is more than simply what is authorized by statute. Added costs. Possible litigation. Longer process. What’s the up side? Oh yeah…nothing. Not even the two people in the entire country that are asking for the additional information will change their minds about where President Obama was born.

    So again, why would the state subject themselves to additional costs, paperwork, bureaucracy, and general pain in the butt for no appparent reason? The process is pretty straight forward right now. You have a list of things you must release by statute. What is the compelling reason to mess with a simple process?

  125. avatar
    nc1 March 18, 2011 at 12:03 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    nc1…just for you (I thought about this on the drive into work).

    Let’s say your request for the number hits DoH.Normal course of action:it’s not on the list of authorized for release.Request rejected.

    No let’s say the governor requested that DoH take a second look at all Obama related requests, just to see if more info can be released.So you now have a bunch of bureacrats and lawyers sitting around debating.

    Question 1:Are we authorized as law/regulation/policy currently stand to release?No.
    Question 2:Are there exceptions?Well…..maybe…possibly…it’s that whole discretion thing.
    Question 3:Do we have to change a policy/regulation, or can we go case by case?Well, the statute isn’t clear.It ussed to be on the list of items authorized for release, but when the statute was amended, it was not on the list of what has to be released.We have to assume there was a reason for this change (legistlatures don’t change laws if they don’t intended the changes to have any effect), but no one has done the legislative history reseach to find out why.
    Question 4:What is the impact of going either way:
    Policy change:As with any time you change a policy, you face issues with public privacy groups complaining, and suing.The more information out there about private individuals, the easier it is for identity theives…what’s the plus side?Oh, nothing.
    Individual expetion:You’ve just change a simple process of look at the list, release the authorized info, reject anything else.Now you have to start reviewing all requests to see if it merits an exception.You’ve just established a precident that it is more than simply what is authorized by statute.Added costs.Possible litigation.Longer process.What’s the up side?Oh yeah…nothing.Not even the two people in the entire country that are asking for the additional information will change their minds about where President Obama was born.

    So again, why would the state subject themselves to additional costs, paperwork, bureaucracy, and general pain in the butt for no appparent reason?The process is pretty straight forward right now.You have a list of things you must release by statute.What is the compelling reason to mess with a simple process?

    Obama has already published the COLB – there is no injury confirming that information he provided to the public is authentic. What is so difficult to understand about it – I thought that Obama supporters were experts in the “no injury department” – an ordinary citizen could not challenge Obama’s eligibility because of the claim that there was no particular injury to the person. Even if a candidate was not eligible for office, there was no injury to an ordinary citizen. That was the position taken by courts.

    There is no need to change the policy when releasing birth registration index. The director has a discretion on individual case basis.

    If the DoH received a request for complete birth registration index for 1961 they have a legal standing to print only data explicitly allowed by law. However, a request for individual record for Barack Obama is quite different. Law allows flexibility in releasing additional information.

    It is interesting that no Obama supporter on this blog chose to comment on the fact that DoH released the information about “vexatious requestors” to Mark Niesse when he asked for it. Why does DoH use double standard in following the same law?

  126. avatar
    JoZeppy March 18, 2011 at 12:23 pm #

    nc1: Obama has already published the COLB – there is no injury confirming that information he provided to the public is authentic. What is so difficult to understand about it – I thought that Obama supporters were experts in the “no injury department” – an ordinary citizen could not challenge Obama’s eligibility because of the claim that there was no particular injury to the person. Even if a candidate was not eligible for office, there was no injury to an ordinary citizen. That was the position taken by courts.

    What Obama does with his personal documents and information has no impact on the situation. Just because I can give out my personal information how I please does not change what the government can do. It is still a violation of President Obama’s privacy rights. You are entitled to do whatever your personal information. The government, or anyone else for that matter is not. Your attempt to somehow connect it with the question of standing is totally off point. It is so unrelated to anything being discussed here I really don’t know where to start. Sorry, but it was just stupid.

    nc1: There is no need to change the policy when releasing birth registration index. The director has a discretion on individual case basis.

    Really? Where do you get that from? You’re just making an assumption. One that is operating complete devoid of any knowledge of how administrative offices of a government work.

    nc1: If the DoH received a request for complete birth registration index for 1961 they have a legal standing to print only data explicitly allowed by law. However, a request for individual record for Barack Obama is quite different. Law allows flexibility in releasing additional information.

    Again, you’re making this up as you go. There is nothing in the law that gives the powers you claim. Nowhere does the law make those distinctions. It merely lists what the DoH must release.

    nc1: It is interesting that no Obama supporter on this blog chose to comment on the fact that DoH released the information about “vexatious requestors” to Mark Niesse when he asked for it. Why does DoH use double standard in following the same law?

    There is no double standard. Making a information request to a government agency is a public record. The minute the state opens that letter, it is a government document. There is no expection of privacy when you ask the government for those documents. They are not personal or private. Vital records are personal/private records. Do you even think these things through before you spot off completely insane comparisons?

  127. avatar
    Greg March 18, 2011 at 12:23 pm #

    The director does not have discretion on an “individual” basis. Do you really think the director gets each request and signs off on the information released?

    You’re misreading the Hawaiian laws in a vacuum. Administrative agencies go through rule making processes that are set in other Hawaiian laws you have clearly not read. They are bound by court rulings you have not read. Perhaps the most important thing these other laws and court cases say is that once you’ve set a rule, you don’t change it on a whim.

    You’re the guy who’s picked up the Merck manual on drugs and thinks he’s a brain surgeon!

  128. avatar
    The Magic M March 18, 2011 at 12:50 pm #

    > Obama has already published the COLB – there is no injury confirming that information he provided to the public is authentic.

    Well, technically, his campaign published it. Can other people waive his privacy rights?

    If your employer published on his website how much money you make each year, does that mean the IRS may then give that information to anyone who asks them?

    Where is the provision in the law that supports that notion? Where is the “waiver clause” that says privacy rights have been waived if you published that information yourself?

  129. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 18, 2011 at 5:23 pm #

    Bovril: Doc,

    Not to be pedantic [stepping straight into pedant mode.... 8-) ] but the analogy is more…

    Q. If I showed you a picture of a couple of leaves and a branches, is that a tree….?

    A. No they are elements of a tree.

    For these purposes, a birth certificate is a certified and printed extract of a very limited set of the entire data universe of the birth records.

    The mystical “long form”is exactly the same in this structure as the COLB. It is a certified extract of SOME of the entire data set AND it has to be certified in manner to demonstrate and bind its provenance, originality and content.

    Without said certification it has only personal interest and not a scintilla of legal validity. In addition, the certification has to meet certain specific minimum requirements of which the seal and signature are only some of the requirements

    As such Danae’s bundle of images is not, never was and never could be a BC/COLB.

    Sorry to get all stolid and stodgy but this point has to hammered into the heads of the Birfoon Tendency. There is not one example available or shown of any other type of BC being available, from Hawai’i, for the last 10 years, other than the one issued to Obama. The sole and singular caveat is the LONGER (not “long form”) BC available solely for native blood Hawai’ns of which Obam is not one.

    If such a document was available why did the Bravo Foxtrot Lt Col Lakin not, even after he tried, get one for his daughter who was born in Hawai’i.

    To the extent that I correctly interpret what you are saying, I think I do not agree and I do not understand what you mean by ” the certification has to meet certain specific minimum requirements of which the seal and signature are only some of the requirements.”

    The document that lies in the vault in Hawaii is a birth certificate. It says “Birth Certificate” on the top and it is signed by the physician certifying the live birth and the local registrar and the registrar general indicating its acceptance by the State. There are no elements missing to make it a birth certificate, an “original birth certificate.”

    What people commonly refer to as a “birth certificate” is what the Vital Statistics community calls a “certified copy.” Danae’s document itself is not a “birth certificate” because it is neither an original birth certificate, nor is it a certified copy. Danae’s document is a photocopy of an original birth certificate.

    A requirements for a certified copy are defined by law or regulation. Typically there is a signature and a raised seal on a certified copy. Certified copies of birth certificates are printed on security paper to reduce fraud.

  130. avatar
    y_p_w March 18, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    A requirements for a certified copy are defined by law or regulation. Typically there is a signature and a raised seal on a certified copy. Certified copies of birth certificates are printed on security paper to reduce fraud.

    The State Dept says “a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal” is needed for BCs issued as evidence for passports. Now I guess we can get pedantic because a lot of embossed seals I’ve seen on BCs represent local or state health departments (like Obama’s COLB), but I don’t think the State Dept is that picky.

    I have a school transcript that’s certified with a multicolored stamp that sort of bleeds the colors. It seemed rather cool, but I always wondered how they keep the ink from simply diffusing into one color. I haven’t heard of a birth certificate in the US using such a seal though.

  131. avatar
    y_p_w March 18, 2011 at 5:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The document that lies in the vault in Hawaii is a birth certificate. It says “Birth Certificate” on the top and it is signed by the physician certifying the live birth and the local registrar and the registrar general indicating its acceptance by the State. There are no elements missing to make it a birth certificate, an “original birth certificate.”

    Depends on the state I think – when it comes to the certifier. The document you’ve shown has a listing for “other”. I know in my state many hospitals have birth certificate offices whose personnel will often certify original BCs rather than track down the attendant.

  132. avatar
    Keith March 19, 2011 at 8:07 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: If I show you a photograph of a tree, you might say “that’s not a tree; it’s just a photograph of a tree.” That’s true. In that sense the Danae document is not a birth certificate — it is a photocopy of a birth certificate.

    Since the Danae document is not a certified copy, it’s no good for getting a passport, and it’s not prima facie evidence in court. It’s not a birth certificate, but it is a photocopy of one and if Onaka had signed it, it would be a birth certificate in the usual sense of the word.

    Yeah, I read “non-certified certificate”; you wrote “non-certified copy”. You were 100% correct, I was 100% idiot.

  133. avatar
    Lil' Red March 19, 2011 at 9:50 am #

    y_p_w: Depends on the state I think – when it comes to the certifier. The document you’ve shown has a listing for “other”. I know in my state many hospitals have birth certificate offices whose personnel will often certify original BCs rather than track down the attendant.

    The block you are referring to is that of the “Attendant”. (i.e. a witness) -Not just someone in the hospital who is supposed to falsify the document, by saying they were an attendant to the birth but really were not. The available blocks are “M.D.” (medical doctor), “D.O.” (doctor of obstatrics), “Midwife”, or “Other”. Other is there because the birth could be attended by someone who is not a doctor or midwife; like a neighbor, relative, paramedic, etc.

    “I know in my state many hospitals have birth certificate offices whose personnel will often certify original BCs rather than track down the attendant.”

    What state and which hospitals? Whoever is signing off as having attended the birth, but really did not, should be charged with fraud.

  134. avatar
    y_p_w March 19, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Lil' Red:

    “I know in my state many hospitals have birth certificate offices whose personnel will often certify original BCs rather than track down the attendant.”

    What state and which hospitals? Whoever is signing off as having attended the birth, but really did not, should be charged with fraud.

    California, and it’s clearly not just one hospital. Here’s the informational BC for John Edward’s alleged daughter (I think she’s a public figure by now):

    http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2008/7/31/birth%20certificate.pdf

    The certifier is listed as having the title “HIM Manager” in field 14 (TYPED NAME AND TITLE OF CERTIFIER IF OTHER THAN ATTENDANT). They do require a parent or other witness to sign in field 12A though.

  135. avatar
    y_p_w March 19, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    It’s pretty simple. I know of at least one hospital that has an office that only handles birth certificates. The personnel have access to the hospital’s files, fill out all the entries in the certificate, have the parents sign it, and finally have an administrator (or the attendant) sign off on it. Again, there’s no requirement in California that the attendant must sign the original certificate. It’s certified based on viewing the information in the patient charts. There is no requirement that the certified has to be a witness. The requirement is that the certifier must believe that the information on the certificate is true.

  136. avatar
    Rickey March 19, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

    Lil' Red: The available blocks are “M.D.” (medical doctor), “D.O.” (doctor of obstatrics), “Midwife”, or “Other”

    .

    D.O. means Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine. A doctor of obstetrics can be either a D.O. or M.D.

  137. avatar
    y_p_w March 19, 2011 at 8:15 pm #

    I just wanted to say that I looked up what “HIM Manager” meant. It stands for “health information management”.

  138. avatar
    Bovril March 20, 2011 at 9:14 am #

    Dr C

    The point is that a signature and seal does not a BC make.

    For the document to be a valid BC it has to include a variety of other mandatory steps first

    It has to be requested in the form prescribed
    It can only be requested by those permitted to request it
    The request has to be checked and validated as being requested legitimately
    A record and track of the request has to be created
    The extract of records from the database has to be run
    The print of the BC has to be run
    The print has to be on security paper with security features sufficient to meet legal requirements
    The print has to be checked for validity
    The BC has to be dispatched or issued
    The record of use and issuance has to be updated and closed

    In the Danae case, unless the extract followed all these steps, which is did not, a signature would not validate it as a legitimate BC

  139. avatar
    nc1 March 20, 2011 at 5:06 pm #

    The Magic M:
    > Obama has already published the COLB – there is no injury confirming that information he provided to the public is authentic.

    Well, technically, his campaign published it. Can other people waive his privacy rights?

    If your employer published on his website how much money you make each year, does that mean the IRS may then give that information to anyone who asks them?

    Where is the provision in the law that supports that notion? Where is the “waiver clause” that says privacy rights have been waived if you published that information yourself?

    Obama is the employer in this case, not his campaign.

    Former White House press secretary Gibbs said (on multiple occasions) that he published the birth certificate, therefore we can assume that this was done with Obama’s consent.

    Neither you nor other Obama defenders can describe what would be injury to him if DoH simply confirmed the date and registration number (data shown on published COLB image).

  140. avatar
    Steve March 20, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    nc1: Where is the provision in the law that supports that notion? Where is the “waiver clause” that says privacy rights have been waived if you published that information yourself?

    Can you answer the last question:

    “Where is the provision in the law that supports that notion? Where is the “waiver clause” that says privacy rights have been waived if you published that information yourself?”

  141. avatar
    nc1 March 20, 2011 at 5:19 pm #

    JoZeppy:
    There is no double standard.Making a information request to a government agency is a public record.The minute the state opens that letter, it is a government document.There is no expection of privacy when you ask the government for those documents.They are not personal or private.Vital records are personal/private records.Do you even think these things through before you spot off completely insane comparisons?

    Thank you for making my point.

    Obama’s request for obtaining a copy of COLB (which was allegedly released to him on June 6, 2007) is a public record the same way butterdezillion’s requests are public record.

    The fact that Obama’s request for issuing the COLB has not been confirmed by DoH while they released buterdezillion’s contact to Mark Niesse is a proof of using a double standard when applying the law.

  142. avatar
    G March 20, 2011 at 5:25 pm #

    nc1: Neither you nor other Obama defenders can describe what would be injury to him if DoH simply confirmed the date and registration number (data shown on published COLB image).

    As usual, you go off on points that are completely irrelevant.

    Injury doesn’t even need to come into play at this point.

    What you simply can’t deal with is reality of the law here and that it doesn’t support your misguided sense of entitlement and personal wishes. In this particular instance, this is all that matters:

    1. There is NO requirement for the DoH to provide the info you are requesting. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Simply stomping your feed and crying that you want to know doesn’t change that the law doesn’t need to give you this at all.

    2. Neither Obama NOR his campaign have any requirement to respond to any birther requests nor provide you with the info you want. They are fully free to chose to ignore you all they want and simply don’t have to explain why.

    If any of this bothers you, you don’t have to vote for him. That is the full extent of any rights, say or impact you have in this matter.

    Not that you’d vote for him anyways…which I guess is the whole point of why you are so mad. There’s nothing you can do to prevent others that don’t share your views from voting from him and his not receiving your vote the next time around will be no different than the last.

  143. avatar
    G March 20, 2011 at 5:29 pm #

    nc1: Obama’s request for obtaining a copy of COLB (which was allegedly released to him on June 6, 2007) is a public record the same way butterdezillion’s requests are public record.
    The fact that Obama’s request for issuing the COLB has not been confirmed by DoH while they released buterdezillion’s contact to Mark Niesse is a proof of using a double standard when applying the law.

    Wrong. There is a big difference from making public written inquiries to a government institution, which go on record and private individuals merely requesting standard documents of their private info.

    Unless you can show a law that says you are entitiled to the full history of any time a living person (to whom you are not related) requests a copy of their own birth certificate, you’re just utterly wrong and going nowhere.

  144. avatar
    Rickey March 20, 2011 at 5:41 pm #

    nc1:

    Neither you nor other Obama defenders can describe what would be injury to him if DoH simply confirmed the date and registration number (data shown on published COLB image).

    No injury is necessary. There would be no injury to me if you accessed my driving record, because I have a listed phone number and my address is in the phone book. But that doesn’t matter – you still can’t get my driving record without my consent, unless you have a permissible use pursuant to the law. I have a right to privacy, even if a breach of my privacy causes me no harm.

    Obama has not waived his privacy rights by publishing his COLB. He also has published his tax returns. Why don’t you write to the IRS and demand a copy Obama’s tax returns on the grounds that he has waived his privacy rights by publishing them? See how far you get, and then report back to us.

    In fact, Hawaii’s laws regarding the disclosure of birth records say nothing about waivers. Obama could announce to the world that he doesn’t care who sees his birth records, and you still wouldn’t be able to see them. Hawaii law requires that you have a “tangible interest” in the birth records, and a waiver by Obama doesn’t give you a “direct and tangible” interest. As I read the law, he would actually have to designate you as his agent before you could get those records.

    A certified copy of a vital record (birth, death, marriage, or divorce certificate) is issued only to an applicant who has a direct and tangible interest in the record. The following persons are considered to have such an interest:

    * the registrant (the person whom the record is concerned with);
    * the registrant’s spouse;
    * the registrant’s parent(s);
    * a descendant of the registrant (e.g., a child or grandchild);
    * a person having a common ancestor with the registrant (e.g., a sibling, grandparent, aunt/uncle, or cousin);
    * a legal guardian of the registrant;
    * a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant;
    * a personal representative of the registrant’s estate;
    * a person whose right to obtain a copy of the record is established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
    * adoptive parents who have filed a petition for adoption and need to determine the death of one or more of the prospective adopted child’s natural or legal parents;
    * a person who needs to determine the marital status of a former spouse in order to determine the payment of alimony;
    * a person who needs to determine the death of a nonrelated co-owner of property purchased under a joint tenancy agreement; and
    * a person who needs a death certificate for the determination of payments under a credit insurance policy.

    If you are not able to establish a direct and tangible interest in the record, you are ineligible and will not be issued a certified copy of the record.

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/elig_vrcc.html

    Explain to me how a “waiver” by Obama somehow gives you a tangible interest in his records.

  145. avatar
    nc1 March 20, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    Steve: Can you answer the last question:

    “Where is the provision in the law that supports that notion? Where is the “waiver clause” that says privacy rights have been waived if you published that information yourself?”

    ===============================================================

    OIP opinion letter deals with this issue:

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2006-07.pdf

    “…Second, a matter no longer affects the privacy of the individual where it has been made public or has been published. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 94-01 at 7 (citing in Painting Industry of Hawaii Market Recovery Fund v. Mm, 69 Haw. 449, 746 P.2d 79 (1987)); Op. Att’y Gen. No. $649 (1986)…”

    “…However, OIP also finds that certain portions of the Minutes reflect matters
    no longer protected because they have been made public and because the public
    interest in disclosure of those matters outweighs Dr. Shon’s privacy interests…”

  146. avatar
    nc1 March 20, 2011 at 6:00 pm #

    Rickey: No injury is necessary. There would be no injury to me if you accessed my driving record, because I have a listed phone number and my address is in the phone book. But that doesn’t matter – you still can’t get my driving record without my consent, unless you have a permissible use pursuant to the law. I have a right to privacy, even if a breach of my privacy causes me no harm.

    Explain to me how a “waiver” by Obama somehow gives you a tangible interest in his records.

    =================================================================
    Read the previous few posts prior to replying. I am not talking about obtaining a copy of Obama’s COLB or long for birth certificate.

    The DoH director has the discretion to release the date and registration number as part of the birth registration INDEX data. They have no excuse for refusing to do this. Clearly there is a public interest and the information has already been published by a presidential candidate.

  147. avatar
    Scientist March 20, 2011 at 6:12 pm #

    nc1: Clearly there is a public interest and the information has already been published by a presidential candidate.

    Supposing Hawaii confirmed it? What would that change? Would you then become an Obama suppporter?

  148. avatar
    Bovril March 20, 2011 at 6:59 pm #

    nc1: The DoH director has the discretion to release the date and registration number as part of the birth registration INDEX data. They have no excuse for refusing to do this. Clearly there is a public interest and the information has already been published by a presidential candidate.

    Yes, FOR EVERYONE not for an individual.

    The DoH of Hawai’i has made a decision as to which data they will or will not release for ALL INDIVIDUALS RECORDS and unless you believe the President should be able to arbitrarily override specific state rights at his whim the you are SOOL.

    Don’t like, it tough titty.

  149. avatar
    Joey March 20, 2011 at 7:00 pm #

    nc1: =================================================================
    Read the previous few posts prior to replying. I am not talking about obtaining a copy of Obama’s COLB or long for birth certificate.

    The DoH director has the discretion to release the date and registration number as part of the birth registration INDEX data. They have no excuse for refusing to do this.Clearly there is a public interest and the information has already been published by a presidential candidate.

    Any chairperson of a congressional committee could subpoena that information from the state of Hawaii if Congress (particularly the Republican majority in the House of Representatives) was interested and felt that data was important.
    However the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, the Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor and the Chair of the House of Representatives’ primary investigative committee, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa have said that they have no interest in the Obama eligibility issue.

  150. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 20, 2011 at 7:05 pm #

    nc1: =================================================================
    Read the previous few posts prior to replying. I am not talking about obtaining a copy of Obama’s COLB or long for birth certificate.

    The DoH director has the discretion to release the date and registration number as part of the birth registration INDEX data. They have no excuse for refusing to do this.Clearly there is a public interest and the information has already been published by a presidential candidate.

    And we keep on telling you that the Hawaii Department of Health does not have the authority to put it upon 1 person, but not for another. The Hawaii Department of Health can decide to do that for every single person, but not just for Barack Obama. To do so would be an extreme violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In order for the Hawaii Department of Health to do that without severly violating the Constitution, they’d have to release the information for every single person born in Hawaii.

    Isn’t it funny how birthers keep on wanting to violate the constitution in order to claim that they want to protect it?

  151. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 20, 2011 at 7:47 pm #

    Scientist: Supposing Hawaii confirmed it?What would that change?Would you then become an Obama suppporter?

    It wouldn’t change anything because NC1 has already moved on to saying he’s not a nbc because of his father’s status

  152. avatar
    G March 20, 2011 at 8:23 pm #

    nc1: The DoH director has the discretion to release the date and registration number as part of the birth registration INDEX data. They have no excuse for refusing to do this. Clearly there is a public interest and the information has already been published by a presidential candidate.

    Having the discretion to release something doesn’t mean they have to. At their discretion, they can simply chose to say no. I’m sure that somewhere, amongst our very diverse population in this country, there is a certain level of “public interest” in just about everything.

    Just because you want something doesn’t mean they owe it to you…no matter how much you stomp your feet and whine. You need to ditch your entitlement mentality and stop acting like a spoiled child.

    They have decided to say “no” and they are fully within their rights to do so, by law in this matter. They don’t even owe you a reason why.

    You just don’t like being told “no”. Well, tough cookies. Welcome to the real world, kid.

  153. avatar
    G March 20, 2011 at 8:28 pm #

    nc1: ===============================================================OIP opinion letter deals with this issue:http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2006-07.pdf“…Second, a matter no longer affects the privacy of the individual where it has been made public or has been published. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 94-01 at 7 (citing in Painting Industry of Hawaii Market Recovery Fund v. Mm, 69 Haw. 449, 746 P.2d 79 (1987)); Op. Att’y Gen. No. $649 (1986)…”“…However, OIP also finds that certain portions of the Minutes reflect mattersno longer protected because they have been made public and because the publicinterest in disclosure of those matters outweighs Dr. Shon’s privacy interests…”

    Completely irrelevant example. Why am I not surprised?

    Did you even read the opinion letter you cited? Or are you just cut/pasting off of other ill-informed birther sites or doing simple word searches without reading the context of what you find before pasting it?

    This case dealt with meeting minute records for a completely unrelated purpose to privacy records, such as birth certificates.

    Not even apples to oranges in terms of bad comparisons. More like apples to aardvarks.

    FAIL.

  154. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 20, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    nc1: The DoH director has the discretion to release the date and registration number as part of the birth registration INDEX data. They have no excuse for refusing to do this. Clearly there is a public interest and the information has already been published by a presidential candidate.

    As I read the law, “I don’t want to” is a perfectly valid excuse for the DoH director not to release the information to which you are referring.

  155. avatar
    gorefan March 20, 2011 at 9:47 pm #

    nc1: The DoH director has the discretion to release the date and registration number as part of the birth registration INDEX data.

    Maybe if birthers hadn’t called the administrators at the DOH a bunch of liars, frauds, cheats and traitors, they would be more amenable to giving them what they wanted. But you morons burned that bridge a long time ago.

  156. avatar
    Majority Will March 20, 2011 at 9:51 pm #

    gorefan: Maybe if birthers hadn’t called the administrators at the DOH a bunch of liars, frauds, cheats and traitors, they would be more amenable to giving them what they wanted.But you morons burned that bridge a long time ago.

    Excellent point. The irony is the birthers were channeling the scary voices in their heads and mumbling into mirrors.

  157. avatar
    Sef March 20, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    I think the point that nc1 is missing is that that the index number is in no way related to the fact of birth. It is an internal bookkeeping entity for which there is no external need. So they are perfectly within their right to ignore requests for its disclosure.

  158. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2011 at 12:34 am #

    nc1: =================================================================

    The DoH director has the discretion to release the date and registration number as part of the birth registration INDEX data. They have no excuse for refusing to do this.Clearly there is a public interest and the information has already been published by a presidential candidate.

    First of all, Hawaii doesn’t owe anything to people like you who don’t live in Hawaii. Is there any “public interest” about this in Hawaii? Anyone other than Andy Martin, that is?

    Their excuse is that they don’t care about what you want. You could not be more irrelevant to the officials in Hawaii. They are not answerable to you.

  159. avatar
    nc1 March 21, 2011 at 1:15 am #

    G: Completely irrelevant example.Why am I not surprised?

    Did you even read the opinion letter you cited?Or are you just cut/pasting off of other ill-informed birther sites or doing simple word searches without reading the context of what you find before pasting it?

    This case dealt with meeting minute records for a completely unrelated purpose to privacy records, such as birth certificates.

    Not even apples to oranges in terms of bad comparisons.More like apples to aardvarks.

    FAIL.

    We are not talking here about birth certificate but birth registration INDEX data. You are not the only Obot who fails to understand the difference between the two.

  160. avatar
    G March 21, 2011 at 1:32 am #

    nc1: We are not talking here about birth certificate but birth registration INDEX data. You are not the only Obot who fails to understand the difference between the two.

    Still a completely IRRELEVANT example you provided. Your incessant one-note whine about the index data is STILL an apples to aardvarks comparison to the opinion you cited.

    Furthermore, you’ve completely ignored *every* response people have given you answering your very specific question on the index data. Try re-reading the thread. Here, I’ll help you with just one:

    Sef: I think the point that nc1 is missing is that that the index number is in no way related to the fact of birth. It is an internal bookkeeping entity for which there is no external need. So they are perfectly within their right to ignore requests for its disclosure.

    Let’s try another:

    Slartibartfast: As I read the law, “I don’t want to” is a perfectly valid excuse for the DoH director not to release the information to which you are referring.

    I could go on and on, as this isn’t the first time you’ve been told this, nor is this the first thread you’ve been specifically answered on this…but three’s the charm, so I’ll leave with one final one…and oh yes – I ALREADY told you so:

    G: Having the discretion to release something doesn’t mean they have to. At their discretion, they can simply chose to say no. I’m sure that somewhere, amongst our very diverse population in this country, there is a certain level of “public interest” in just about everything.
    Just because you want something doesn’t mean they owe it to you…no matter how much you stomp your feet and whine. You need to ditch your entitlement mentality and stop acting like a spoiled child.
    They have decided to say “no” and they are fully within their rights to do so, by law in this matter. They don’t even owe you a reason why.
    You just don’t like being told “no”. Well, tough cookies. Welcome to the real world, kid.

    Keep plucking that chicken, NC1.

  161. avatar
    nc1 March 21, 2011 at 1:34 am #

    Sef:
    I think the point that nc1 is missing is that that the index number is in no way related to the fact of birth.It is an internal bookkeeping entity for which there is no external need.So they are perfectly within their right to ignore requests for its disclosure.

    Thank you for confirming my argument – there is nothing private about birth registration index that would require secrecy on DoH part. DoH could freely disclose the full birth registration index without violating any laws.

    The fact that they refuse to disclose the trivial data that has been published by Obama confirms the suspicion that they re covering for Obama. Either the Date Filed or registration number shown on COLB is not correct – the document is a forgery.

  162. avatar
    nc1 March 21, 2011 at 1:42 am #

    Rickey: First of all, Hawaii doesn’t owe anything to people like you who don’t live in Hawaii. Is there any “public interest” about this in Hawaii? Anyone other than Andy Martin, that is?

    Their excuse is that they don’t care about what you want. You could not be more irrelevant to the officials in Hawaii. They are not answerable to you.

    UIPA law is not restricted to Hawaii residents.

    Eligibility for US presidency is clearly the matter of interest for all US citizens regardless of their resident state.

  163. avatar
    Daniel March 21, 2011 at 1:46 am #

    nc1: Thank you for confirming my argument – there is nothing private about birth registration index that would require secrecy on DoH part.DoH could freely disclose the full birth registration index without violating any laws.

    The fact that they refuse to disclose the trivial data that has been published by Obama confirms the suspicion that they re covering for Obama. Either the Date Filed or registration number shown on COLB is not correct – the document is a forgery.

    Are they also covering for Joseph R Smith? How about Nancy B Overton, Richard knightly, and Elizabeth Cooper, and the several million other people on the Index Data for which the DOH won’t release the specific items you want for Obama?

    Are they all usurpers too? Id the conspiracy that wide ranging? Is every person in the entire state of Hawaii conspiring to keep Obama on the throne?

    See when you really examine all the consequences of the ridiculous thing you allege, it becomes so unwieldy as to be laughable.

    The fact is that no reasonable person can extrapolate a forgery of an official document from being refused information to which you have no right in any case.

    And that, my dear deluded nc1, is why you birthers cannot win a single court case, or manage to gain the support of congress, even when you have a majority. Nobody cares about your dripping and moaning.

  164. avatar
    Daniel March 21, 2011 at 1:48 am #

    nc1: UIPA law is not restricted to Hawaii residents.

    Eligibility for US presidency is clearly the matter of interest for all US citizens regardless of their resident state.

    Yes and the rest of us have managed to grasp the simple and incontrovertible fact that Obama is eligible.

    Nobody has to go to any extra effort to placate you, just because you happen to be a sore loser.

  165. avatar
    G March 21, 2011 at 2:03 am #

    nc1: The fact that they refuse to disclose the trivial data that has been published by Obama confirms the suspicion that they re covering for Obama. Either the Date Filed or registration number shown on COLB is not correct – the document is a forgery.

    NO.

    They don’t disclose that “trivial data” for ANY individual.

    Face it, what YOU want is for them to make an exception and treat Obama’s data differently than every one else’s records.

    Sorry, doesn’t work that way.

  166. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 21, 2011 at 2:21 am #

    Actually, we are not talking about Birth Index Data, because the Hawaii Department of Health didn’t put it in the birth index. Therefore it is not birth index data.

    Could the Hawaii Department of Health add those two things in the Birth Index? Yes. However, they haven’t, therefore it’s not birth index data. The data on the birth index is the same for everybody. You don’t get to say, “Well, for Billy Joe Bob, it’s the full birth certificate is in the index. But for Peggy Sue, it’s only the name and gender.” You’re basically asking the Hawaii Department of Health should release this information for everybody who was born in Hawaii in order to release Obama’s information.

  167. avatar
    Keith March 21, 2011 at 2:21 am #

    G: Just because you want something doesn’t mean they owe it to you…no matter how much you stomp your feet and whine. You need to ditch your entitlement mentality and stop acting like a spoiled child.

    But I bet holding your breath until they give it to you would work…

  168. avatar
    nc1 March 21, 2011 at 3:13 am #

    Daniel: Are they also covering for Joseph R Smith? How about Nancy B Overton, Richard knightly, and Elizabeth Cooper, and the several million other people on the Index Data for which the DOH won’t release the specific items you want for Obama?

    Are they all usurpers too? Id the conspiracy that wide ranging? Is every person in the entire state of Hawaii conspiring to keep Obama on the throne?

    See when you really examine all the consequences of the ridiculous thing you allege, it becomes so unwieldy as to be laughable.

    The fact is that no reasonable person can extrapolate a forgery of an official document from being refused information to which you have no right in any case.

    And that, my dear deluded nc1, is why you birthers cannot win a single court case, or manage to gain the support of congress, even when you have a majority. Nobody cares about your dripping and moaning.

    1. None of the people you mentioned were in the public spotlight because of the candidacy for US presidency. That is the difference between Obama and unknown ordinary citizens. In addition, Obama published his birth index information, therefore another argument against official confirmation of this data is removed from consideration.

    It bears repeating for those who do not read previous posts on the thread:

    An OIP opinion letter deals with the issue of releasing data previously made available to the public:

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2006-07.pdf

    “…Second, a matter no longer affects the privacy of the individual where it has been made public or has been published. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 94-01 at 7 (citing in Painting Industry of Hawaii Market Recovery Fund v. Mm, 69 Haw. 449, 746 P.2d 79 (1987)); Op. Att’y Gen. No. $649 (1986)…”

    “…However, OIP also finds that certain portions of the Minutes reflect matters no longer protected because they have been made public and because the public interest in disclosure of those matters outweighs Dr. Shon’s privacy interests…”

    There is no reason for DoH to continue refusing the confirmation of full birth registration INDEX data for Obama: We are talking about two simple things: date and registration number.

    2. I am not using DoH behavior as a main argument for claim that COLB is a forgery. The main argument has been discussed before – the Date Filed and registration number do not fit into the official narrative of Kapiolani Hospital birth.

    DoH behavior reinforces the conclusion about COLB authenticity.

  169. avatar
    Mike March 21, 2011 at 3:25 am #

    Keith: But I bet holding your breath until they give it to you would work…

    Not enough, it wouldn’t; the vagus nerve cuts in automatically to restore breathing after unconsciousness occurs, more’s the pity where nc1’s concerned.

  170. avatar
    The Magic M March 21, 2011 at 5:22 am #

    > The fact that they refuse to disclose the trivial data that has been published by Obama confirms the suspicion that they re covering for Obama.

    What sense would that make?

    In birthers’ dream land, one day all those who “participated in the fraud” will be put on trial. Do you really think that in such a birtherverse, the defense “oh, I knew Obama’s data were fake, that’s why I never confirmed them” would prevent one from being found guilty?

    OTOH in the real world, states do not pander to the interests of the lunatic fringe. You know, like confirming everything world+dog say or write, publishing receipts for stamps used on receipts confirming receipts confirming requests for COLBs, or copies of indexes of receipts for cheques paid to hospital employees to prove that they really were hospital employees at the time they signed the “original long form BC”.

  171. avatar
    Keith March 21, 2011 at 6:27 am #

    nc1: There is no reason for DoH to continue refusing the confirmation of full birth registration INDEX data for Obama

    And they have done that several times.

    The record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… (etc)

  172. avatar
    Sef March 21, 2011 at 9:15 am #

    nc1: Thank you for confirming my argument – there is nothing private about birth registration index that would require secrecy on DoH part.DoH could freely disclose the full birth registration index without violating any laws.

    The fact that they refuse to disclose the trivial data that has been published by Obama confirms the suspicion that they re covering for Obama. Either the Date Filed or registration number shown on COLB is not correct – the document is a forgery.

    And the level of incomprehension just rose 5 meters higher. The flood waters are going to inundate all of birtherstan. It’s going to be of biblical proportions.

  173. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 21, 2011 at 9:57 am #

    Sef: And the level of incomprehension just rose 5 meters higher. The flood waters are going to inundate all of birtherstan. It’s going to be of biblical proportions.

    Cats and dogs will be living together, mass hysteria

  174. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 21, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    Keith: And they have done that several times. The record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… the record’s stuck… (etc)

    Somebody move the needle

  175. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 21, 2011 at 9:59 am #

    The Magic M: > The fact that they refuse to disclose the trivial data that has been published by Obama confirms the suspicion that they re covering for Obama.What sense would that make?In birthers’ dream land, one day all those who “participated in the fraud” will be put on trial. Do you really think that in such a birtherverse, the defense “oh, I knew Obama’s data were fake, that’s why I never confirmed them” would prevent one from being found guilty?OTOH in the real world, states do not pander to the interests of the lunatic fringe. You know, like confirming everything world+dog say or write, publishing receipts for stamps used on receipts confirming receipts confirming requests for COLBs, or copies of indexes of receipts for cheques paid to hospital employees to prove that they really were hospital employees at the time they signed the “original long form BC”.

    Yeah because when we found out that the intelligence was fitted around the policy, all those involved in lying us into war were charged and found guilty NC1

  176. avatar
    JoZeppy March 21, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    nc1: Thank you for confirming my argument – there is nothing private about birth registration index that would require secrecy on DoH part. DoH could freely disclose the full birth registration index without violating any laws.

    Well, nothing except that statute that says exactly what has to be released upon request..

    And by the way, like most things, law related, you may actually want to either stay away from making legal arguments, or spend a little more time in a law library before spouting them off. Your OIP opinion is totally off in that it is about government records. The caes they cite also have nothing to do with private documents. Painting Industry of Hawaii Market Recovery Fund v. Alm, was about a settlement agreement, which is not a private document. Again, you spout off in an ignorance of what you are talking about. Add to that, the statute is very specific about what has to be released, and they’ve done exactly that. Your paranoid rants, and requirement that everyone prove their innocence while you get to operate without the need to produce the slightest bit of evidence for your wild accusations if more appropriate for Stalinist USSR than the US. You have been wrong about pretty much everything you have ever posted here. Do you ever tire of being so universally misguided?

  177. avatar
    Rickey March 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    nc1: UIPA law is not restricted to Hawaii residents.

    As usual, you miss the point.

    Hawaii clearly is fed up with the repetitive and vexatious demands of birhers. Consequently, you are not going to get anything which Hawaii is not required by law to give you.

  178. avatar
    Judge Mental March 21, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    The fact that they refuse to disclose the trivial data that has been published by Obama confirms the suspicion that they re covering for Obama.

    You fail to understand why the above is not even close to being a valid if ‘x’ then ‘y’ situation. It’s so blatantly unsound in logic as to have no value to a sensible discussion other than as comic relief.

    Forget birtherism for a moment……just never serve on a jury, you are not competent.

  179. avatar
    Sef March 21, 2011 at 6:48 pm #

    nc1, if any of these state birther laws get enacted are you going to request from every state for every candidate the information you expect HI to give you for President Obama? What if the index number is missing, or a signature, or if the state doesn’t show you the receipt for the proffered BC? Are you going to sue? Even the Republican candidates?

  180. avatar
    gorefan March 21, 2011 at 9:21 pm #

    nc1: therefore another argument against official confirmation of this data is removed from consideration.

    Wrong, show us in the Hawaiian laws were there is an exception to someone running for President.

    Also the Nordyke’s published their entire BCs. So get the DOH to confirm their certification numbers. Their cert numbers could be fakes. They could be anarchists trying to sew confusion and doubt in the US President and undermine the US government. And if you read some of the birther websites, their plan is working.

    If DOH refuses to confirm their Certification numbers that is proof that the Nordyke’s are hiding something. And that the DOH is involved.

  181. avatar
    gorefan March 21, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    Sef: It’s going to be of biblical proportions

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Cats and dogs will be living together, mass hysteria

    Mother pus-bucket!

  182. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 21, 2011 at 10:56 pm #

    gorefan:
    Mother pus-bucket!

    yeah you were a bit slow on the response

  183. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 22, 2011 at 12:22 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): gorefan:
    Mother pus-bucket!

    yeah you were a bit slow on the response

    Back off, man… I’m a scientist!

  184. avatar
    y_p_w March 22, 2011 at 12:39 am #

    Sef:
    nc1, if any of these state birther laws get enacted are you going to request from every state for every candidate the information you expect HI to give you for President Obama? What if the index number is missing, or a signature, or if the state doesn’t show you the receipt for the proffered BC? Are you going to sue? Even the Republican candidates?

    Some of these bills actually require that the actual documents (or photocopies) be made available for public inspection and copying. It could get really strange if birthers were actually allowed to physically handle a candidate’s birth certificate. I thought with most public records laws, the documents were always in the direct custody of a governmental agency.

    The real crux of the matter is that there are so many different bills. If several of them get passed, it’s going to create a lot of disparate paperwork requirements. Several require that the documents are held by the state for public inspection (i.e. the candidate doesn’t get it back). Some are absolute that a “long form birth certificate” be supplied (with no exceptions given), which probably means someone born and registered via EBR won’t be eligible in that state.

    I did notice that there was one bill (from Oklahoma?) that mentioned the Consular Report of Birth Abroad, but I think that one didn’t specifically mention Presidential candidates. I’m surprised that more of the birther bill authors didn’t think of that. However – that might be tricky since they require inspection of an original document, and the State Dept doesn’t issue multiple copies (although they’ll supposedly replace a lost or damaged one).

  185. avatar
    gorefan March 22, 2011 at 12:40 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): yeah you were a bit slow on the response

    “I don’t have to take abuse from you. I have other people dying to give it to me.”

  186. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 22, 2011 at 2:08 am #

    The full birth index for Obama is:

    Birth Index
    Obama, Barack Hussein II
    Male

    Just because you think some more information should be a part of the Birth Index, doesn’t mean that it actually is a part of the birth index. And in order for the Hawaii Department of Health to add anything to the birth index, they’d have to do it for every single person who is in that index. To do so otherwise would be a severe violation of the Equal Protection of the United States Constitution.

    So, nc1, just admit it. You want the Hawaii Department of Health to add information about every single person to the Birth Index in order for you to have your way.

  187. avatar
    nc1 March 22, 2011 at 3:35 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    The full birth index for Obama is:

    Birth Index
    Obama, Barack Hussein II
    Male

    Just because you think some more information should be a part of the Birth Index, doesn’t mean that it actually is a part of the birth index.And in order for the Hawaii Department of Health to add anything to the birth index, they’d have to do it for every single person who is in that index.To do so otherwise would be a severe violation of the Equal Protection of the United States Constitution.

    So, nc1, just admit it.You want the Hawaii Department of Health to add information about every single person to the Birth Index in order for you to have your way.

    You mentioned a partial birth index – the portion that MUST be released upon request.
    However, the full birth registration index contains registration number and date. Without these two items the DoH could not maintain birth records. How would they maintain records for people having same name?

    Think about the article written by Mark Niesse in August 2010. Okubo told him that birth index for 1961 is available for purchase ($98.75).
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012561698_apusobamabirthcertificate.html

    This directly contradicts your claim.

  188. avatar
    obsolete March 22, 2011 at 3:43 am #

    Again, I must ask why did Hawaii allow Kenya to make entries to Hawaii’s birth index?

  189. avatar
    nc1 March 22, 2011 at 3:57 am #

    gorefan: Wrong, show us in the Hawaiian laws were there is an exception to someone running for President.

    Also the Nordyke’s published their entire BCs.So get the DOH to confirm their certification numbers.Their cert numbers could be fakes.They could be anarchists trying to sew confusion and doubt in the US President and undermine the US government.And if you read some of the birther websites, their plan is working.

    If DOH refuses to confirm their Certification numbers that is proof that the Nordyke’s are hiding something.And that the DOH is involved.

    Do you understand the phrase “public interest”? Does eligibility for US presidency fall into that category?

    When a Nordyke twin runs for US presidency I will be concerned about her eligibility for office.

  190. avatar
    The Magic M March 22, 2011 at 4:14 am #

    > It could get really strange if birthers were actually allowed to physically handle a candidate’s birth certificate.

    New on “lolbirthers”: I found you bird sertificat but then I ated it. ;-)

    http://www.mattwardman.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/20080125-galloway-lolcats-cookie2.jpg

  191. avatar
    nc1 March 22, 2011 at 4:19 am #

    JoZeppy: Well, nothing except that statute that says exactly what has to be released upon request..

    And by the way, like most things, law related, you may actually want to either stay away from making legal arguments, or spend a little more time in a law library before spouting them off.Your OIP opinion is totally off in that it is about government records.The caes they cite also have nothing to do with private documents.Painting Industry of Hawaii Market Recovery Fund v. Alm, was about a settlement agreement, which is not a private document.Again, you spout off in an ignorance of what you are talking about.Add to that, the statute is very specific about what has to be released, and they’ve done exactly that.Your paranoid rants, and requirement that everyone prove their innocence while you get to operate without the need to produce the slightest bit of evidence for your wild accusations if more appropriate for Stalinist USSR than the US.You have been wrong about pretty much everything you have ever posted here.Do you ever tire of being so universally misguided?

    1. Your arguments are weak and make no sense. Have you missed this quote from OIP letter:
    “…However, OIP also finds that certain portions of the Minutes reflect matters no longer protected because they have been made public and because the public interest in disclosure of those matters outweighs Dr. Shon’s privacy interests…”

    Replace Dr. Shon’s name with Obama’s name in the previous quote if you had problems understanding its meaning.

    2. The UIPA law provides flexibility allowing the DoH director to release other data if s(he) chooses to do so. Claiming that law prevents the release of full birth registration index tells me that you are not interested in truth and law, but protecting Obama regardless of consequences. What happened to your conscience?

    3. Could you describe what would be the injury if Hawaii DoH confirmed that data shown on Obama’s COLB image is legitimate?

  192. avatar
    Expelliarmus March 22, 2011 at 5:21 am #

    Do you understand the phrase “public interest”? Does eligibility for US presidency fall into that category?

    Obama’s already is President; his eligibility was proven to the satisfaction of Congress in January 2008.

    The index data that has been released already shows his birth in Hawaii. Unless it is your contention that he was under the age of 35 in 2008, there is no other data that is relevant to proving eligibility. That is, the index data tells us where he was born, it just doesn’t tell us when.

  193. avatar
    The Magic M March 22, 2011 at 7:05 am #

    > Could you describe what would be the injury if Hawaii DoH confirmed that data shown on Obama’s COLB image is legitimate?

    That is a meaningless question as the answer “there is none” still does not mean that the DoH has to / should confirm what you want it to.
    The issue is not that the DoH thinks there would be “injury” but that it simply does not feel the need to “confirm” anything the birther nutjobs want it to confirm.
    Just like they do not feel the need to show you any “receipt for Obama’s request for the COLB” or any other 5th- and 6th-level meta documentation you want it to produce. You will never be satisfied anyway.
    Claiming that “if the DoH just said the COLB is legit (which it did BTW, let’s not forget that) and shows me the receipt confirming Obama actually applied for it and shows me some more data from the birth records, I will be satisfied and lay the issue to rest” is simply intellectually dishonest and pure hypocrisy.

    > the public interest in disclosure of those matters outweighs Dr. Shon’s privacy interests

    The “public interest” in n-th level meta documentation does not outweigh anything. The state of Hawaii confirmed Obama was born there. This ends any “public interest” in n-th level meta documentation supposedly allegedly maybe stating something different.

    Let’s take an analogy: there’s a certain law enacted by Congress I don’t like. Now I claim I have “public interest” not only in the respective Congress report (to confirm it actually voted for this law) and the voting records of Congress (to confirm it actually voted on what the report claims it voted on) but also the written testimony of every member of Congress (to confirm they actually voted the way the voting records claim) and the stamped receipts of their bus tickets (to confirm they actually drove to Congress the day they claimed to have voted).
    And of course any sane person says: no, you don’t have “public interest” in those records just because you think every documentation Congress has produced is lying.

    > What happened to your conscience?

    Oh, was that the one logical fallacy you were still missing before you can shout “BINGO”? Appeal to emotion and conscience?

    > Claiming that law prevents the release of full birth registration index tells me that you are not interested in truth and law, but protecting Obama regardless of consequences.

    Either the law prevents it, in which case there is nothing to whine about.
    Or the law permits it, in which case someone telling you something on a blog is certainly not “protecting Obama”. Or since when does a blog poster’s opinion have the power to “protect” or “deliver” the US President?

  194. avatar
    gorefan March 22, 2011 at 9:25 am #

    nc1: When a Nordyke twin runs for US presidency I will be concerned about her eligibility for office.

    Your wrong again, Your entire reason for seeing the President’s certification number is bexause you say it doen’t fit the nordyke’s numbers. Without their numbers, you cannot make that assumption. So prove their numbers are real.

    Contact the DOH and have them confirm the Nordyke’s numbers. If DOH won’t, then that is proof that the Nordyke numbers are fake.

  195. avatar
    gorefan March 22, 2011 at 10:02 am #

    nc1: Have you missed this quote from OIP letter:

    You mean the ruling about Sunshine laws in Hawaii. They only cover government boards, not private individuals. Get the OIP to issue an opinion that says the President gave up his privacy rights, then quote that opinion.

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2006-07.pdf

  196. avatar
    JoZeppy March 22, 2011 at 10:36 am #

    nc1: 1. Your arguments are weak and make no sense. Have you missed this quote from OIP letter:“…However, OIP also finds that certain portions of the Minutes reflect matters no longer protected because they have been made public and because the public interest in disclosure of those matters outweighs Dr. Shon’s privacy interests…”Replace Dr. Shon’s name with Obama’s name in the previous quote if you had problems understanding its meaning.2. The UIPA law provides flexibility allowing the DoH director to release other data if s(he) chooses to do so. Claiming that law prevents the release of full birth registration index tells me that you are not interested in truth and law, but protecting Obama regardless of consequences. What happened to your conscience? 3. Could you describe what would be the injury if Hawaii DoH confirmed that data shown on Obama’s COLB image is legitimate?

    I have read the opinion. I have also read the cases they cited to. Unfortunately, you do not know how to apply case law. The facts are completely different, and thus inapplicable. You can’t just pull a sentance out of context from somewhere, and pretend that the context doesn’t matter. That’s not how things work in the world of law. I really shouldn’ be surprised that you have a fundamental understanding of how to read legal opinions and case law, because you have yet to get anything right on the matter. The underlying case law was regarding records of government hearings. That is factually dissimilar from private vital records.The law also mandates what has to be released. DoH has complied with the law. The fact that DoH is not interested in mucking around trying to go beyond what the law states, and make exceptions is not surprising. When you start making exceptions, you add costs, and make a precident that the review is anything but by route (I have also not done any reseach in the state DoH regulations, which may also have a proceedure on such records, and may also prohibit release…but I really don’t care as the information is trivial, and proves nothing). This is how bureaucracies work. Add to that they have no motivation what so ever to make an exception for a small handful of malcontents that will still be unstatisfied. There is no benefit to bucking the system. And in case you missed it, DoH has many times confirmed the President was born in Hawaii. The fact that you’re still whining shows you have no interest in the truth, and are just on a witch hunt looking to harass anyone and everyone.

  197. avatar
    nc1 March 22, 2011 at 11:43 am #

    JoZeppy: I have read the opinion.I have also read the cases they cited to.Unfortunately, you do not know how to apply case law.The facts are completely different, and thus inapplicable.You can’t just pull a sentance out of context from somewhere, and pretend that the context doesn’t matter.That’s not how things work in the world of law.I really shouldn’ be surprised that you have a fundamental understanding of how to read legal opinions and case law, because you have yet to get anything right on the matter.The underlying case law was regarding records of government hearings.That is factually dissimilar from private vital records.The law also mandates what has to be released.DoH has complied with the law.The fact that DoH is not interested in mucking around trying to go beyond what the law states, and make exceptions is not surprising.When you start making exceptions, you add costs, and make a precident that the review is anything but by route (I have also not done any reseach in the state DoH regulations, which may also have a proceedure on such records, and may also prohibit release…but I really don’t care as the information is trivial, and proves nothing).This is how bureaucracies work.Add to that they have no motivation what so ever to make an exception for a small handful of malcontents that will still be unstatisfied.There is no benefit to bucking the system.And in case you missed it, DoH has many times confirmed the President was born in Hawaii.The fact that you’re still whining shows you have no interest in the truth, and are just on a witch hunt looking to harass anyone and everyone.

    The DoH is not making exceptions!?

    This is not true. How do you explain their offer to sell birth index for 1961? This directly contradicts the claim that only name and sex can be released. The DoH has been caught in a lie and you and other Obama supporters continue to support that lie.

    Will you now claim that birth index registration number is more private than the birth year?

    Registration number 10641 and Date filed (August 8, 1961) do not fit the official birthplace story. You have no excuses.

  198. avatar
    Scientist March 22, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    nc1: How do you explain their offer to sell birth index for 1961?

    Why don’t you buy it then? $98.75 for what you believe to be the most important piece of paper in the history of the world sounds like a great bargain. Don’t be a cheapskate!

  199. avatar
    Sef March 22, 2011 at 11:59 am #

    nc1: The DoH is not making exceptions!?

    This is not true. How do you explain their offer to sell birth index for 1961? This directly contradicts the claim that only name and sex can be released. The DoH has been caught in a lie and you and other Obama supporters continue to support that lie.

    Will you now claim that birth index registration number is more private than the birth year?

    Registration number 10641 and Date filed (August 8, 1961) do not fit the official birthplace story.You have no excuses.

    As has been explained to you over, and over, and over, ad infinitum, the birth index registration number is not part of the index. It is solely for internal DoH record-keeping purposes. It would be akin to the on disk block address in the database. You have neither a right nor a need for this number. Go away.

  200. avatar
    Joey March 22, 2011 at 12:04 pm #

    This registration number silliness is easily explained by what happens when births occur after the close of business hours on a Friday and births over a weekend. Anyone who has ever worked for a large corporation or even worse, a government bureaucracy knows that when you come to work on Monday morning mail and forms that piled up over the weekend are not necessarily recorded in chronological order.

    In 1961, no one cared about matching registration numbers with time of birth. If a birth certificate had a registration number on it, it was official.

    Fifty years later, no one is going to be able to credibly explain why the Nordyke Twins numbers are a little bit lower than the Barack Obama number. Any attempt to figure that out will be pure speculation and guess work.

    Birthers are going for their black belts in the ancient Asian martial art of picking nits.
    After 92 adjudications in lawsuits, haven’t they figured out by now, NO ONE CARES but birthers.

    “The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–John Boehner, Speaker of the House (R-OH).

    “The President was born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. That’s just a fact. It’s been established, he was born here/.” Former Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI)

  201. avatar
    JoZeppy March 22, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    nc1: The DoH is not making exceptions!? This is not true. How do you explain their offer to sell birth index for 1961? This directly contradicts the claim that only name and sex can be released. The DoH has been caught in a lie and you and other Obama supporters continue to support that lie. Will you now claim that birth index registration number is more private than the birth year?Registration number 10641 and Date filed (August 8, 1961) do not fit the official birthplace story. You have no excuses.

    Please prove that DoH is caught in a lie and would not have to make an exception. Get the same info on someone else. Go purchase the index. They have publicly released what is required by law. What you consider “more private” is irrelevant. What matters is the clear wording of the statute, which they have complied with.

    And the registration number and date filed only do not fit in your convoluted and paranoid mind. You do not have the slightest bit of evidence to support your mad ramblings. All the evidence is against you. It is you that has no excuses. All you have is your paranoia.

  202. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 22, 2011 at 12:51 pm #

    nc1, actually what Okubo said was that the birth index is available for viewing, and a copy can be sent for the cost of copying it and available. Guess what, some people actually went to the HawaiI Department of Health, and took a look at the birth index. It, within a couple of years, was an alphabetical index of names with the birth index. It consisted of the following:

    Obama II , Barack Hussein, Male.

    Here’s the exact page from the birth index: (Given to you by a birther who actually went over there and viewed it).

    http://myveryownpointofview.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ptdc0030.jpg

    Barack Obama is right in between Duplicate Mae Obado and Jane C. Obanion.

    That is the very index that they’re talking about. As you can see, it really contains no more information than other birth indexes, other than maybe narrowing it down to a few years (the same article puts the birth indexes at about every 5 years).

  203. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 22, 2011 at 12:58 pm #

    dunstvangeet: Duplicate Mae Obado

    Duplicate? What were Mr. & Mrs. Obado thinking?

  204. avatar
    JoZeppy March 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    Joey: This registration number silliness is easily explained by what happens when births occur after the close of business hours on a Friday and births over a weekend. Anyone who has ever worked for a large corporation or even worse, a government bureaucracy knows that when you come to work on Monday morning mail and forms that piled up over the weekend are not necessarily recorded in chronological order.In 1961, no one cared about matching registration numbers with time of birth. If a birth certificate had a registration number on it, it was official.Fifty years later, no one is going to be able to credibly explain why the Nordyke Twins numbers are a little bit lower than the Barack Obama number. Any attempt to figure that out will be pure speculation and guess work.Birthers are going for their black belts in the ancient Asian martial art of picking nits.After 92 adjudications in lawsuits, haven’t they figured out by now, NO ONE CARES but birthers.“The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–John Boehner, Speaker of the House (R-OH). “The President was born at Kapiolani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. That’s just a fact. It’s been established, he was born here/.” Former Governor Linda Lingle (R-HI)

    Is it so hard for these nutters to accept that in the age of paper record keeping (heck, even today), papers get shuffled? We are talking about a 1961 government bureaucracy. Besides, how do we know that President Obama’s number is the one that was suffled and not the Nordyke sisters (not that it would matter)? You have two sets of numbers, the President’s and the twins. It’s impossible to tell if one was slipped to the back of a pile, or the other was moved to the front (neither of which is evidence of anything nefarious).

  205. avatar
    Joey March 22, 2011 at 1:58 pm #

    JoZeppy: Is it so hard for these nutters to accept that in the age of paper record keeping (heck, even today), papers get shuffled?We are talking about a 1961 government bureaucracy.Besides, how do we know that President Obama’s number is the one that was suffled and not the Nordyke sisters (not that it would matter)?You have two sets of numbers, the President’s and the twins.It’s impossible to tell if one was slipped to the back of a pile, or the other was moved to the front (neither of which is evidence of anything nefarious).

    Exactly, or two different records clerks working at different speeds. Perhaps one went out for a coffee break while the other didn’t. We’re only talking about a difference several digits.
    The answer to this question from fifty years ago is most likely unknowable and moot.

  206. avatar
    Majority Will March 22, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    JoZeppy: Is it so hard for these nutters to accept that in the age of paper record keeping (heck, even today), papers get shuffled?We are talking about a 1961 government bureaucracy.Besides, how do we know that President Obama’s number is the one that was suffled and not the Nordyke sisters (not that it would matter)?You have two sets of numbers, the President’s and the twins.It’s impossible to tell if one was slipped to the back of a pile, or the other was moved to the front (neither of which is evidence of anything nefarious).

    But her entire existence hinges on the prospect of finding something, anything nefarious.

    She has no life, no purpose, no hobbies other than trying to convince people her delusions are real. The total number and sheer repetitiveness of her posts is proof beyond any doubt. Across the ‘net they number in the thousands and without varying much at all.

    Repeating these delusions and impotent cries for attention are the sum total of her only reason for living.

  207. avatar
    Whatever4 March 22, 2011 at 3:04 pm #

    Birthers focus on the leaves on the trees, and completely miss the forest. Sometimes we do the same. Obama’s COLB was released in June 2008. The un-redacted number was photographed by Factcheck.org in August 2008. The Nordyke birth certificates first appeared in a Honolulu Advertiser article in July, 2009. Certificate numbers don’t appear in the birth index.

    So IF the COLB was forged, how come the Obama and Nordyke numbers are so close? There are only 2 other certificates between them. Someone should play the lottery.

  208. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 22, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Joey: Exactly, or two different records clerks working at different speeds. Perhaps one went out for a coffee break while the other didn’t. We’re only talking about a differenceseveral digits.
    The answer to this question from fifty years ago is most likely unknowable and moot.

    Given that all that we can be certain of at this point are the Nordyke’s numbers, the president’s numbers, and the dates of birth and filing, we’ll never be able to tell what combination of stacks, queues, parallel processes, and serial processes were used in the birth registration process in 1961. I doubt that anyone could come up with a more plausible hypothetical work flow than the one Doc presented, but what we do know is that there was some sort of process in place. While there is a plausible workflow that would explain the established facts, the birthers have never explained what sort of nefarious doings would explain the ‘anomaly’ they have found much less why the anomaly could only be the result of such a scheme and not an ordinary process that might be found in, say, the Hawai’ian DOH in 1961…

    The birthers are so good at spotting these so-called anomalies because they need to focus on minute details – the closer they get to looking at the big picture, the more obvious it becomes that they are total whackjobs (not to mention chock full of sedition, to boot…). Forget about missing the forest for the trees, the birthers don’t even notice the trees because they are too busy looking for discrepancies in the leaves…

  209. avatar
    obsolete March 22, 2011 at 6:40 pm #

    JoZeppy: You have two sets of numbers, the President’s and the twins. It’s impossible to tell if one was slipped to the back of a pile, or the other was moved to the front (neither of which is evidence of anything nefarious).

    But don’t you see- Obama is BLACK? nc1 and other birthers NEVER give Obama the benefit of the doubt. ANYTHING that goes on with Obama MUST be nefarious.

    nc1 has refused to consider that if Obama may have been lied to himself if the birthers stupid home-birth story turned out to be true. No, Obama should have remembered his own birth so he must be impeached for lying.

    At least nc1 hasn’t yet publicly supported Ghadaffy over Obama as some birthers have…

  210. avatar
    nc1 March 23, 2011 at 3:07 am #

    JoZeppy: Please prove that DoH is caught in a lie and would not have to make an exception.Get the same info on someone else.Go purchase the index.They have publicly released what is required by law.What you consider “more private” is irrelevant.What matters is the clear wording of the statute, which they have complied with.

    And the registration number and date filed only do not fit in your convoluted and paranoid mind.You do not have the slightest bit of evidence to support your mad ramblings.All the evidence is against you.It is you that has no excuses.All you have is your paranoia.

    DoH officials claimed that birth index data was already published. Obama supporters bought this explanation. It was easy to prove that this is a false claim. Since the DoH does not consider birth year to be private data, why on Earth would they consider registration number to be private? It does not make any sense (if the official birthplace story were true) and you know it. Their behavior goes against the reasons why the UIPA law was passed in the first place.

  211. avatar
    nc1 March 23, 2011 at 4:07 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    nc1, actually what Okubo said was that the birth index is available for viewing, and a copy can be sent for the cost of copying it and available.Guess what, some people actually went to the HawaiI Department of Health, and took a look at the birth index.It, within a couple of years, was an alphabetical index of names with the birth index.It consisted of the following:

    Obama II , Barack Hussein, Male.

    Here’s the exact page from the birth index: (Given to you by a birther who actually went over there and viewed it).

    http://myveryownpointofview.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/ptdc0030.jpg

    Barack Obama is right in between Duplicate Mae Obado and Jane C. Obanion.

    That is the very index that they’re talking about.As you can see, it really contains no more information than other birth indexes, other than maybe narrowing it down to a few years (the same article puts the birth indexes at about every 5 years).

    Please explain to me how does birth index work without unique registration number?

    What would happen if a person changed name and the new name was already in the index – how would DoH distinguish duplicate index records?

  212. avatar
    The Magic M March 23, 2011 at 5:23 am #

    > Please explain to me how does birth index work without unique registration number?

    You are probably aware that a database-driven index always has a unique identifier associated. But why would that internal information be published, or need to be published?
    You wouldn’t even know how this identifier is created – maybe it’s a sequential number, maybe it’s yyyy-mm-dd-sequential#, maybe it’s random, who knows. But what would such a number tell you if you knew it?

  213. avatar
    Keith March 23, 2011 at 8:50 am #

    nc1: What would happen if a person changed name and the new name was already in the index – how would DoH distinguish duplicate index records?

    You wouldn’t if it didn’t have an number. But for the purposes of the birth index you wouldn’t care either.

    If a person changed name, that would not affect the fact of the name at birth. If the name was already in the index, i.e. there could be lots of John Smiths, so what? If the index ends up with two John Smiths, so what? It has no relevance to the purpose of the index that there are two or more John Smiths or one John Smith. The purpose of the index is not necessarily to point you to the exact record in the archives; it is to tell you that there is such a record exists in the archives. If you then have to go to the archives and figure out which of two or more John Smiths is relevant, then so be it.

  214. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 23, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    nc1: What would happen if a person changed name and the new name was already in the index – how would DoH distinguish duplicate index records?

    The way birth systems are designed, there is only one active birth record at a time. If someone changes their name, the old record becomes inactive and the change record active. The birth index would show whatever records were active at the time the index was printed.

    At least that’s how it works in the states I worked with (Hawaii not being one).

  215. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 23, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    nc1: Please explain to me how does birth index work without unique registration number?

    In the state vital record systems I worked with, the unique record key for a birth event was an internally generated number that had no purpose other than as a record key. While the state file number or the certificate number was usually unique, that wasn’t always the case for historical record.

    Duplicate State File Numbers aren’t necessarily a problem. The user just searches by the number, gets a list of matches and then picks the one they want. It’s the same thing if you had duplicate parent names, or duplicate child names (which is common).

    If the underlying system supports duplicate state file numbers, then there is no issue in printing these on an index.

    In the case of the Hawaiian record labeled “duplicate” one would expect that the birth was registered twice, and the two registrations would have two different state file numbers. I would not expect that Hawaii had any automation of their index in 1961. The duplicate may have been detected when they keyed their old birth records into the new paperless system.

  216. avatar
    Sef March 23, 2011 at 10:59 am #

    nc1: What would happen if a person changed name and the new name was already in the index – how would DoH distinguish duplicate index records?

    It doesn’t look like nc1 has done much genealogy. In early years, albeit long before such things were required to be recorded by a state, sometimes a child would die in infancy and a later child would be given the same name until “one took”.

  217. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 23, 2011 at 11:13 am #

    The Magic M: You wouldn’t even know how this identifier is created – maybe it’s a sequential number, maybe it’s yyyy-mm-dd-sequential#, maybe it’s random, who knows. But what would such a number tell you if you knew it?

    In our systems, we just used a sequential number with no number prefix. In the most recent development, we started using GUIDs, something that works out remarkably well.

  218. avatar
    JoZeppy March 23, 2011 at 1:20 pm #

    nc1: DoH officials claimed that birth index data was already published. Obama supporters bought this explanation. It was easy to prove that this is a false claim. Since the DoH does not consider birth year to be private data, why on Earth would they consider registration number to be private? It does not make any sense (if the official birthplace story were true) and you know it. Their behavior goes against the reasons why the UIPA law was passed in the first place.

    If it’s so easy to prove false, please go right ahead. DoH gives you what the statute requires. You see, that’s usually how bureaucrats work. They don’t have to think about what to consider private, it’s already there in black and white. The legislature did the thinking for them. It makes perfect sense. You can’t get into trouble if you go by what the legislature dictated. Again, the slightest bit of knowledge of how an administrative state works might help you along. As for the UIPA, their behavior is completely in line with it. UIPA was designed for open “government documents.” They even go off and list what kinds of documents have to be released. It was not intended to give every nutter access to personal vital records, or let anyone off the street decide what is or is not private. The law is very specific as to what has to be released, and they’ve done exactly that.

  219. avatar
    Daniel March 23, 2011 at 1:29 pm #

    nc1 obvioulsy hasn’t spent much time dealing with bureaucracy. He seems to be under the impression that a bureaucrat must give you everything that they are not specifically ordered to deny you.

    The reality is that a bureaucrat will only give you what he is specifically told he must give you, and then only if you ask for it specifically, and with the correct forms.

  220. avatar
    Majority Will March 23, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: In our systems, we just used a sequential number with no number prefix. In the most recent development, we started using GUIDs, something that works out remarkably well.

    Re: GUIDs

    “The total number of unique keys is 2128 or 3.4—1038 — roughly 2 trillion per cubic millimeter of the entire volume of the Earth. This number is so large that the probability of the same number being generated twice is extremely small.”

    Extremely small? That’s terrific hyperbole!

    (source: wiki)

  221. avatar
    Sef March 23, 2011 at 2:40 pm #

    Majority Will: This number is so large that the probability of the same number being generated twice is extremely small.

    Uniqueness depends on the generating process. Just ask an identical twin what the probability is of there being someone else with the same DNA as them.

  222. avatar
    Majority Will March 23, 2011 at 3:32 pm #

    Sef: Uniqueness

    By literal definition any pair of twins cannot be unique. Twins are two and unique is one. Something truly singular stands alone.

  223. avatar
    Thrifty March 23, 2011 at 4:20 pm #

    Sef: This whole image analysis discussion reminds me of the pseudo-science in C.S.I. Miami where they extracted a photo of a murderer from a digital photo of the victim by blowing up the reflection from her cornea. At the absolute max the entire eye would have been 1 pixel and they pretended to get info from that. With stuff like this abounding on TV is it any wonder that we have this crank “analysis”?

    Zap Branigan: Why is it so blurry?
    Kif: That’s all the resolution we have. Making a picture bigger doesn’t make it any clearer.

  224. avatar
    Majority Will March 23, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    Thrifty: Zap Branigan: Why is it so blurry?
    Kif: That’s all the resolution we have.Making a picture bigger doesn’t make it any clearer.

    One of my favorite Futurama scenes.

    Zapp Brannigan: Magnify that death sphere.
    [Screen zooms in on a pixelated death sphere]
    Zapp Brannigan: Why is it still blurry?
    Kif Kroker: That’s all the resolution we have. Making it bigger doesn’t make it clearer.
    Zapp Brannigan: It does on CSI Miami.

  225. avatar
    Suranis March 24, 2011 at 1:22 am #

    Its interesting that NC1 talks about injury, because that’s what a lot of the, what, 74 birther cases stood on. The argument went that putting President Obama on the ballot and later him winning the election injured them, and that gave them standing to challenge the election. Of course the courts rejected that argument outright at least 50 times. And sometimes with “man up, you pathetic whiner” written in legalese.

    So he/she is still arguing with an argument that simply has never been taken seriously, especially where it counts.

    Pathetic, really

  226. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 1:54 am #

    Suranis:
    Its interesting that NC1 talks about injury, because that’s what a lot of the, what, 74 birther cases stood on. The argument went that putting President Obama on the ballot and later him winning the election injured them, and that gave them standing to challenge the election. Of course the courts rejected that argument outright at least 50 times. And sometimes with “man up, you pathetic whiner” written in legalese.

    So he/she is still arguing with an argument that simply has never been taken seriously, especially where it counts.

    Pathetic, really

    I am still waiting for someone to describe the injury if DoH confirmed issuing COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007?

  227. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 2:15 am #

    Keith: You wouldn’t if it didn’t have an number. But for the purposes of the birth index you wouldn’t care either.

    If a person changed name, that would not affect the fact of the name at birth. If the name was already in the index, i.e. there could be lots of John Smiths, so what? If the index ends up with two John Smiths, so what? It has no relevance to the purpose of the index that there are two or more John Smiths or one John Smith. The purpose of the index is not necessarily to point you to the exact record in the archives; it is to tell you that there is such a record exists in the archives. If you then have to go to the archives and figure out which of two or more John Smiths is relevant, then so be it.

    Your post does not make much sense.

    Read the post I replied to. There was a claim that birth index does not contain anything other than name and sex.

    As you can read from Dr. C’s comments, birth index does contain a unique identifier.

  228. avatar
    obsolete March 24, 2011 at 2:27 am #

    nc1: I am still waiting for someone to describe the injury if DoH confirmed issuing COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007?

    They already confirmed they issued it to him. Have you asked them what date they issued it to him, or are you just claiming they “refuse to answer” like usual?

  229. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 2:37 am #

    JoZeppy: If it’s so easy to prove false, please go right ahead.DoH gives you what the statute requires.You see, that’s usually how bureaucrats work.They don’t have to think about what to consider private, it’s already there in black and white.The legislature did the thinking for them.It makes perfect sense.You can’t get into trouble if you go by what the legislature dictated.Again, the slightest bit of knowledge of how an administrative state works might help you along.As for the UIPA, their behavior is completely in line with it.UIPA was designed for open “government documents.”They even go off and list what kinds of documents have to be released.It was not intended to give every nutter access to personal vital records, or let anyone off the street decide what is or is not private. The law is very specific as to what has to be released, and they’ve done exactly that.

    1. You don’t get it, do you? If legislature did all the thinking for DoH, how do you explain their offer to sell birth index for a particular year? Birth year is not on the list of things that must be released upon request.

    Could it be that your explanation of the law is incorrect? Could it be that DoH director does have a flexibility to release additional birth index data?

    2. You also failed to address the issue of releasing the information about “vexatious requestors” to Mark Niesse (AP writer) while denying release of information about Obama’s alleged request for issuing COLB. Obama had to pay a fee for obtaining a copy of COLB. The DoH must have recorded that transaction in their books. Why would they refuse to confirm to the public that such transaction took place on June 6, 2007?

  230. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 24, 2011 at 2:55 am #

    The HawaiI Department of Health has never said that they’d “sell” a birth index. They said that the birth index was available, and they’d mail it for a fee to copy it, as what is available via regulations.

    The Birth Index is actually organized into about 5-year blocks, I believe. Within that, it’s organized alphabetically, and I’ve shown you the birth index page for Barack Hussein Obama, obtained by a birther.

    Now NC1’s moving the goalposts to wanting a confirmation of the confirmation. Next, he’s going to want a confirmation of that confirmation. The Hawaii Department of Health has legally said that they issued the birth certificate with the following statement, made under the penalty of purgery: “I hereby certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.”

    Furthermore, they’ve further said, “It’s a valid Hawaii State Birth Certificate.” And Okubo said that it looks exactly like hers. Furthermore, you have further confirmation in the fact that others have brought their birth certificates in, and compared it to Obama’s, and said that it looks the same. Okubo also says that the United States Supreme Court recognizes the birth certificate as the legal Hawaii state birth certificate. Okubo has also said that the birth certificate is what is issued when someone asks for a birth certificate. She’s further said that a lot of the birther scenarios are impossible to have.

    You’re just moving the goalposts, nc1. You now want a confirmation of the confirmation, nc1, and then acting as if it’s strange that they won’t give it to you. My gut is that the Hawaii Department of Health doesn’t keep the reciepts for the birth certificates, and if they did, they’d be covered under the same privacy laws that prevents them from issuing a birth certificate to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who asks for it.

    The confirmation of the birth certificate is ultimately on the birth certificate itself. “I certify this is a true abstract or copy of the file on record at the Hawaii Department of Health. Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. State Registrar.” The very fact that it exists is confirmation that they issued it. Every court in America accepts this birth certificate as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii. And no, I don’t mean the Fantasy Tiddlywinks League that the birthers have tried to set up to try to make themselves appear legal.

  231. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 3:50 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    The HawaiI Department of Health has never said that they’d “sell” a birth index.They said that the birth index was available, and they’d mail it for a fee to copy it, as what is available via regulations.

    The Birth Index is actually organized into about 5-year blocks, I believe.Within that, it’s organized alphabetically, and I’ve shown you the birth index page for Barack Hussein Obama, obtained by a birther.

    Now NC1′s moving the goalposts to wanting a confirmation of the confirmation.Next, he’s going to want a confirmation of that confirmation.The Hawaii Department of Health has legally said that they issued the birth certificate with the following statement, made under the penalty of purgery: “I hereby certify that this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file at the Hawaii Department of Health.”

    Furthermore, they’ve further said, “It’s a valid Hawaii State Birth Certificate.”And Okubo said that it looks exactly like hers.Furthermore, you have further confirmation in the fact that others have brought their birth certificates in, and compared it to Obama’s, and said that it looks the same.Okubo also says that the United States Supreme Court recognizes the birth certificate as the legal Hawaii state birth certificate.Okubo has also said that the birth certificate is what is issued when someone asks for a birth certificate.She’s further said that a lot of the birther scenarios are impossible to have.

    You’re just moving the goalposts, nc1.You now want a confirmation of the confirmation, nc1, and then acting as if it’s strange that they won’t give it to you.My gut is that the Hawaii Department of Health doesn’t keep the reciepts for the birth certificates, and if they did, they’d be covered under the same privacy laws that prevents them from issuing a birth certificate to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who asks for it.

    The confirmation of the birth certificate is ultimately on the birth certificate itself.“I certify this is a true abstract or copy of the file on record at the Hawaii Department of Health.Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. State Registrar.”The very fact that it exists is confirmation that they issued it.Every court in America accepts this birth certificate as proof that Obama was born in Hawaii.And no, I don’t mean the Fantasy Tiddlywinks League that the birthers have tried to set up to try to make themselves appear legal.

    .

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2012561698_apusobamabirthcertificate.html

    In response, the Department of Health has offered to provide hundreds of sheets of index data if requesters will pay for it. At 25 cents per page, the 1961 birth index data would cost $98.75.

    As you can see the DoH offered a copy of 1961 birth index for sale. Did Okubo lie to the reporter?

  232. avatar
    The Magic M March 24, 2011 at 4:20 am #

    > Obama had to pay a fee for obtaining a copy of COLB. The DoH must have recorded that transaction in their books. Why would they refuse to confirm to the public that such transaction took place on June 6, 2007?

    This is getting ridiculous. Next you’re going to ask for the receipt Obama got when paying the stamps on the letter requesting a copy of his COLB.
    Or the stamped bus ticket of the person in the Hawaii DoH “allegedly” recording the request to prove said person actually went to work that particular day.

    Tell me, NC1, how and why would such a confirmation “satisfy” you in any way? Is this going to be the last goalpost and you’re finally going to admit the COLB is legit and Obama was born in Hawaii? No. So why release such n-th level meta documentation?

    You’re like the guy who is sued in a civil court and starts by demanding the judge to repeat his oath of office in front of you, then prove he has been legally assigned to your case, then prove he successfully graduated from law school, then demand to see his professor’s credentials and witness reports validating that he actually went to exam the day he got his degree, then demand to see the full documentation of the president who signed him into office, then demand to see the full documentation of the court house construction to verify you’re really in a court house and not somewhere else.

    Grow up, will you? No-one’s taking you serious anymore. And certainly us Obot thugs are not “afraid” of anything you can come up with. ;)

  233. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 24, 2011 at 4:39 am #

    $0.25 cents a page is a standard copying fee, NC1.

    The birth index is available to view at the HawaiI Department of Health. If they want copies of it, they pay the copying fee (which is $0.25 a page).

    Like I said, from what I can figure out, the index is bound into 5-year bundles. Within those bundles, it is alphabetical. There is a birth index for 1960-1964, apparently. That has Obama’s name in it, which the HawaiI Department of Health acknowledges it. This all comes from a birther source, too.

    And Like I said, nc1. The confirmation of the birth certificate is on the birth certificate itself. It is what is called a self-authenticating document. Read up on them in the Federal Rules of Evidence. There is no need, in Federal Court (and every state court has rules of evidence that usually follow the FRE) to present any more evidence of it’s authenticity. It’s upto the people disputing that evidence to prove (and I do mean prove, not just “Oh, even though I don’t have any specific evidence it may have been fraudently registered,” or “it’s possible that it may be forged, even though I don’t have any specific evidence”) to prove that it’s not authentic.

    In a hypothetical case where the birthers get past the standing issue, all Obama would have to do is present the same exact document that’s been online for the last 2.5 years, and the judge would declare him to be born in this country and therefore a Natural Born Citizen. Furthermore, no judge would grant any discovery past that. Judges do not like having their courtrooms used as fishing expeditions. No discovery of the “long-form” because the short-form is sufficient. No discovery of Obama’s other records, because they are not relevant. No pestering the State of Hawaii to produce the receipt that Obama used to pay for the birth certificate. As I’ve said before, all Obama would have to do is present this exact birth certificate, and he’d be declared eligible for the Presidency.

  234. avatar
    Keith March 24, 2011 at 4:49 am #

    nc1: Your post does not make much sense.

    Read the post I replied to. There was a claim that birth index does not contain anything other than name and sex.

    As you can read from Dr. C’s comments, birth index does contain a unique identifier.

    No, you are wrong, you are just flat wrong and are doing yourself no favors by continuing to argue the point.

    The index data that can be published is defined by law to be name and gender. There may be a unique key id associated with that index entry, but it is not part of the index itself.

  235. avatar
    Keith March 24, 2011 at 5:05 am #

    Keith: nc1: Your post does not make much sense.

    Read the post I replied to. There was a claim that birth index does not contain anything other than name and sex.

    As you can read from Dr. C’s comments, birth index does contain a unique identifier.

    No, you are wrong, you are just flat wrong and are doing yourself no favors by continuing to argue the point.

    The index data that can be published is defined by law to be name and gender. There may be a unique key id associated with that index entry, but it is not part of the index itself.

    I forgot to add: that unique key may change every time the Department upgrades its systems. In 1961, it probably didn’t have such a unique key, the manual system would have relied on the name.

    In the 70’s, when they loaded it onto computer the first time (probably using a non-Database random access protocol such as IBM ISAM) it would have gotten a unique key.

    In the early to mid 80’s they would have upgraded to VSAM, and it would have gotten a new number when the newly designed file system was loaded.

    In the 90’s when relational databases were the go another new file design (technically a table schema), another data conversion load would have assigned yet new unique key.

    In the 2000’s Enterprise Resource Planning systems such as SAP provided entirely new methods of document management. And guess what? Another data conversion load, another new unique key.

    The key is meaningless to anything outside of the computer system. Period.

  236. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 5:09 am #

    Keith: No, you are wrong, you are just flat wrong and are doing yourself no favors by continuing to argue the point.

    The index data that can be published is defined by law to be name and gender. There may be a unique key id associated with that index entry, but it is not part of the index itself.

    Birth year is part of the index – otherwise it would be impossible to create a birth index list for a particular year.

    DoH published PARTIAL birth certificate index, they published only part that must be published upon request. Publishing other parts of birth index is up to director of DoH. Simple offer to sell birth index for 1961 proves that DoH can release birth year. Therefore claims that only name and sex can be published are false.

    Using the same logic, if DoH could publish birth year they could publish registration number – this number is a trivial piece of information. There is nothing private about it that warrants hiding.

  237. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 5:19 am #

    Keith: I forgot to add: that unique key may change every time the Department upgrades its systems. In 1961, it probably didn’t have such a unique key, the manual system would have relied on the name.

    In the 70′s, when they loaded it onto computer the first time (probably using a non-Database random access protocol such as IBM ISAM) it would have gotten a unique key.

    In the early to mid 80′s they would have upgraded to VSAM, and it would have gotten a new number when the newly designed file system was loaded.

    In the 90′s when relational databases were the go another new file design (technically a table schema), another data conversion load would have assigned yet new unique key.

    In the 2000′s Enterprise Resource Planning systems such as SAP provided entirely new methods of document management. And guess what? Another data conversion load, another new unique key.

    The key is meaningless to anything outside of the computer system. Period.

    LOL. How did they maintain records in 1961 if birth registration number was not used as a unique key?

    The previous version of the law explicitly mandated that date and registration number must be published along with name and sex.

    OIP Opinion Letter 90-23 (written in 1990) HRS 338-18:

    “(d) Index data consisting of name, age, and sex of the registrant and date, type and file number of the vital event and such other data as the director may authorize may be made available to the public.”

    http://hawaii.gov/oip/opinionletters/opinion%2090-23.pdf

  238. avatar
    Judge Mental March 24, 2011 at 6:34 am #

    nc1: Birth year is part of the index – otherwise it would be impossible to create a birth index list for a particular year.DoH published PARTIAL birth certificate index, they published only part that must be published upon request. Publishing other parts of birth index is up to director of DoH. Simple offer to sell birth index for 1961 proves that DoH can release birth year. Therefore claims that only name and sex can be published are false. Using the same logic, if DoH could publish birth year they could publish registration number – this number is a trivial piece of information. There is nothing private about it that warrants hiding.

    .

    In practice the rules the DOH are complying with most often kick in to play when a request for birth index information for a specific year or range of years is received by them.

    All requests for birth index information specify a year or range of years for which the applicant requests the information. In that respect it is therefore already inherently implicit that if the DOH supplies any reply at all to the applicant giving a list of the names and genders for a specifically requested year or range of years they are obviously by default automatically confirming (or releasing information as you might put it) that those names were born in that year or range of years.

    What ridiculous word games you play. You will now post saying thank you for confirming that the birth year is part of the birth index.

    Your line of argument is both a crock of brown stuff and utterly irrelevant.

  239. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 24, 2011 at 8:05 am #

    nc1: LOL. How did they maintain records in 1961 if birth registration number was not used as a unique key?

    “Unique key?” That sounds like a computer programming term. In 1961 it’s far more likely that they had index cards or some such.

  240. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 24, 2011 at 8:10 am #

    Keith: In the 70′s, when they loaded it onto computer the first time (probably using a non-Database random access protocol such as IBM ISAM) it would have gotten a unique key.

    It’s been a very long time since I worked with ISAM, but I don’t think a unique key was required. I also used VSAM, BDAM and QSAM.

  241. avatar
    Suranis March 24, 2011 at 8:36 am #

    nc1: I am still waiting for someone to describe the injury if DoH confirmed issuing COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007?

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/13/obamas-birth-certificate/

    “To verify we did indeed have the correct document, we contacted the Hawaii Department of Health, which maintains such records.

    “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.

    Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get the record in April 2008, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.”

    There, the DOH confirmed it was issued prior to its release on the Internet, and it had to have been either President Obama or a member of his family who requested it. Happy? Of course in the off chance you are just stirring shit you will ignore it that same as the other 200 times you have asked the same question, ignored the answers and posited bullshit dates. You see, it does not matter what specific day it was requested, just that it was. And that its a valid Hawai’in birth certificate.

    Its funny that the answer to your ” question” has been out there since at least June 2009.

  242. avatar
    The Magic M March 24, 2011 at 8:59 am #

    What was the reason again NC1 so desperately wants to see an “index unique key”? What would it prove, what would the next step be?

  243. avatar
    Bovril March 24, 2011 at 10:15 am #

    The Magic M: What was the reason again NC1 so desperately wants to see an “index unique key”? What would it prove, what would the next step be?

    If in some alternative universe the DoH gets fed up and issues said “index unique key” then Nancy1 would demand ALL “index unique keys” to see if there was a duplicate of Obama’s and when (in said mad universe).

    Once that gets issued Nancy1 then squeals that she/he/it requires all transactional logs and journal files to check that even though the number is unique its the ORIGINAL unique number and not a made up fudged record.

    Then we’ll have demands for archived tapes and backup to make sure …etc etc etc.

    Nothing but nothing will ever satisfy a fracking Birther

  244. avatar
    JoZeppy March 24, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    nc1: I am still waiting for someone to describe the injury if DoH confirmed issuing COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007?

    Violation of state law and DoH policy. It’s an illegal release of documents and an unauthorized violation of his privacy rights. How hard is that to understand?

  245. avatar
    Sef March 24, 2011 at 10:37 am #

    nc1: The previous version of the law explicitly mandated that date and registration number must be published along with name and sex.

    If you think this why don’t you check to see if someone has a copy of the earlier index dump, such as LDS. They microfilmed everything they could get their hands on. Go to your nearest Family History Center at an LDS church and see if they have it or can get it from SLC.

  246. avatar
    JoZeppy March 24, 2011 at 10:43 am #

    nc1: their offer to sell birth index for a particular year? Birth year is not on the list of things that must be released upon request.
    Could it be that your explanation of the law is incorrect? Could it be that DoH director does have a flexibility to release additional birth index data?

    It is always possible that my interpretation could be wrong. However, that would require some evidence. All you have shown that where DoH has shown flexibility (or in this case probably just a decision of practicality) they do on a consistent basis, not individual exepction. Here, they release the index by year (a rather practical decision). You’ll note, there are no individual exceptions, and it is a method of organization. They have no need to include the index number, and they don’t. For anyone. Again a consistent policy for everyone.

    nc1: 2. You also failed to address the issue of releasing the information about “vexatious requestors” to Mark Niesse (AP writer) while denying release of information about Obama’s alleged request for issuing COLB. Obama had to pay a fee for obtaining a copy of COLB. The DoH must have recorded that transaction in their books. Why would they refuse to confirm to the public that such transaction took place on June 6, 2007?

    There are plenty of reasons that are plausible. I can only speculate. One possiblity is they consider an individual making a request about their vital information to fall under the exception. Another is that unlike an information request, that is subject to appeal, and requires maintaining detailed government records, which in turn are subject to an informaiton request, perhaps a request for a birth record by an individual isn’t treated as such and is merely a cash register type transaction where they only keep a record of the transaction amount, and not the individual’s name. There are plenty of reasonable explanations that don’t require a deep conspiracy.

  247. avatar
    JoZeppy March 24, 2011 at 10:48 am #

    nc1: Using the same logic, if DoH could publish birth year they could publish registration number – this number is a trivial piece of information. There is nothing private about it that warrants hiding.

    They could…but they don’t. So get over it.

  248. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 24, 2011 at 11:31 am #

    The Magic M: <PYou’re like the guy who is sued in a civil court and starts by demanding the judge to repeat his oath of office in front of you, then prove he has been legally assigned to your case, then prove he successfully graduated from law school, then demand to see his professor’s credentials and witness reports validating that he actually went to exam the day he got his degree, then demand to see the full documentation of the president who signed him into office, then demand to see the full documentation of the court house construction to verify you’re really in a court house and not somewhere else.Grow up, will you? No-one’s taking you serious anymore. And certainly us Obot thugs are not “afraid” of anything you can come up with.

    Speaking of which. I read a court transcript the other day that was posted on one of the popular tech sites. The transcript referred to a case where a witness was called and the litigator asked if he had any Photocopy machines in his office. The witness asked what do you mean by photocopy machines? They spent a whole ten pages worth of dialogue trying to define the phrase for him and what it meant.

  249. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: “Unique key?” That sounds like a computer programming term. In 1961 it’s far more likely that they had index cards or some such.

    I am using these two phrases in the same context.

    Registration number made index card unique. It played the same role as a key in a modern database, a fixed reference that uniquely identifies a particular record.

  250. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 12:15 pm #

    nc1: Using the same logic, if DoH could publish birth year they could publish registration number – this number is a trivial piece of information. There is nothing private about it that warrants hiding.

    JoZeppy: They could…but they don’t.So get over it.

    ==================================================================
    What happened to your previous claims that DoH only follows the law and only releases information that is exlicitly spelled by the law, no exceptions?

    You have falsely claimed that there is no flexibility built into the UIPA law.

  251. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    JoZeppy: Violation of state law and DoH policy.It’s an illegal release of documents and an unauthorized violation of his privacy rights.How hard is that to understand?

    1. We are not talking about unauthorized release of document here – just a simple confirmatoin whether DoH issued a copy of COLB to Obama. It was not a request for actual birth certificate.

    2. Nobody, even minor party candidates whose name was on the presidential ballot were given standing for challenging Obama’s eligibility in courts. Possible violation of the Constitution was not considered an injury. Obama supporters agree with this viewpoint.

    Why should I believe your claim that violation of the state law and DoH policy is an injury to an individual? You applied double standard for defining an injury.

  252. avatar
    JoZeppy March 24, 2011 at 12:31 pm #

    nc1: What happened to your previous claims that DoH only follows the law and only releases information that is exlicitly spelled by the law, no exceptions?
    You have falsely claimed that there is no flexibility built into the UIPA law.

    No I never did such a thing. The statute is clear that it say there is some discretion. I said they choose not to use to, and certainly do not use it on a case by case basis. The fact that they have published volumes that are divided by year, or span of years, and constitute a release of a year or range of years (I’ll leave it for someone who has actually examined the bound volumes) doesn’t change the fact that there has been shown no flexibility in what they release for one individual or another. Funny thing is, although they may have a defacto release of the year, you’ll note that when people ask for the information (like published on the website), they don’t tell you the year. So everything is consistent.

  253. avatar
    nc1 March 24, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    The Magic M:
    What was the reason again NC1 so desperately wants to see an “index unique key”? What would it prove, what would the next step be?

    It is an indirect way of confirming whether Obama’s COLB is an official document or a forgery. That field was conveniently blacked out when COLB image was released to public in June 2008. It took more than two months for improved version to be presented.

    Since DoH refuses to answer a direct question about issuing COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007, asking for birth index data is another way of verifying whether Obama told the truth.

  254. avatar
    Daniel March 24, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    nc1: It is an indirect way of confirming whether Obama’s COLB is an official document or a forgery. That field was conveniently blacked out when COLB image was released to public in June 2008.It took more than two months for improved version to be presented.

    Since DoH refuses to answer a direct question about issuing COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007, asking for birth index data is another way of verifying whether Obama told the truth.

    Shoulda/woulda/coulda

  255. avatar
    Majority Will March 24, 2011 at 12:36 pm #

    nc1: Why should I believe your claim

    WTF should anyone care WTF you believe? What you want is irrelevant especially since you made up your paranoid mind a long time ago.

    You are an irrelevant exercise in futility.

  256. avatar
    Scientist March 24, 2011 at 12:46 pm #

    nc1: It is an indirect way of confirming whether Obama’s COLB is an official document or a forgery

    Hawaii knows whether the facts stated on the COLB are true or not. If they are allowing a forged document to be presented and backing it up, then they are in on the conspiracy. And if they are in on the conspiracy, they wouldn’t bother with forging the COLB. They would simply alter the records and do so in a way that no one could possibly tell. Obama has access to teams of document experts at the CIA, FBI and NSA. They have forgotten 100x more about forging documents than all the birthers together could even imagine.

    You will get nowhere with your foolish inquiries. We OWN you!!!!

  257. avatar
    Joey March 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    nc1: 1.We are not talking about unauthorized release of document here – just a simple confirmatoin whether DoH issued a copy of COLB to Obama.It was not a request for actual birth certificate.

    2.Nobody, even minor party candidates whose name was on the presidential ballot were given standing for challenging Obama’s eligibility in courts.Possible violation of the Constitution was not considered an injury.Obama supporters agree with this viewpoint.

    Why should I believe your claim that violation of the state law and DoH policy is an injury to an individual? You applied double standard for defining an injury.

    It is likely that if John McCain, Sarah Palin and/or the Republican National Committee had filed suit, they would have been granted standing because those persons and that entity could show direct injury to meet the first requirement of Article III standing.

    In testimony before the Hawaii Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii Department of Health stated that “…the President posted a copy of his birth certificate on his former campaign web site.” That statement has been confirmation enough for most people who matter on this issue.
    “The state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That’s good enough for me.”–John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives

    “A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may well be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly disserve the public interest.”–US District Court Judge Clay R. Land, Middle District of Georgia

  258. avatar
    Joey March 24, 2011 at 2:15 pm #

    Former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin questioned on President Obama’s faith and citizenship:
    http://www.cbs.com/video/video.php?pid=LhhXEBv8Y8IY2xzhJ8GmBn22nNDRct_Q

  259. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) March 24, 2011 at 2:54 pm #

    nc1: It is an indirect way of confirming whether Obama’s COLB is an official document or a forgery. That field was conveniently blacked out when COLB image was released to public in June 2008. It took more than two months for improved version to be presented.Since DoH refuses to answer a direct question about issuing COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007, asking for birth index data is another way of verifying whether Obama told the truth.

    Stop beating around the bush with your feigned concern trolling. You’ve already established that Hawaii doing everything than can and then some to verify and confirm the original document does not matter to you. Verifying the number doesn’t matter to you because you’ve already said he wasn’t eligible because of his father’s citizenship. So enough with this BS line of reasoning on your part.

  260. avatar
    Joey March 24, 2011 at 3:06 pm #

    nc1: It is an indirect way of confirming whether Obama’s COLB is an official document or a forgery. That field was conveniently blacked out when COLB image was released to public in June 2008.It took more than two months for improved version to be presented.

    Since DoH refuses to answer a direct question about issuing COLB to Obama on June 6, 2007, asking for birth index data is another way of verifying whether Obama told the truth.

    Janice Okubo, Public Information Officer, Hawaii Department of Health in response to a question about Barack Obama’s COLB: ” Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”
    She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”
    The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.
    Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”
    From the article “Born Identity” in the Honolulu Star-Bulliten that has been posted on this site and linked many times over the last two years.

  261. avatar
    JoZeppy March 24, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    nc1: ==================================================================What happened to your previous claims that DoH only follows the law and only releases information that is exlicitly spelled by the law, no exceptions?You have falsely claimed that there is no flexibility built into the UIPA law.

    I never said there was no flexibility. There is quite clear langauge the the Director has the authority to make additional index data part of what is released. I have argued that they cannot release it for one person and not the other, and that it needs to be consistent. I have even gone on to discuss why the director would choose not to make more data available. I have also said, that bureaucrats like to operate within the confides of the letter of the law, which is exactly what they are doing. I also said they are not required to release anything more than what the statute dictates, and nothing in UIPA changes that. And I also said they have decided not to release more information, so deal. And again, I also said you should note that when they released his info on-line, it did not contain the year.

  262. avatar
    JoZeppy March 24, 2011 at 3:56 pm #

    nc1: 1. We are not talking about unauthorized release of document here – just a simple confirmatoin whether DoH issued a copy of COLB to Obama. It was not a request for actual birth certificate.

    They have confirmed his birth certificate. They just haven’t used the magic words you want them to (how many different ways can they say he was born in Hawaii?). You are asking for them to release the registration number, which is something they do for no one else (which would be an unauthorized release of information), and give you confirmation that he purchase his birth certificate on a certain day, which I have yet to see any evidence that they even keep a record of that. I have yet to see anything that would give me reason to be suspicious of the state’s actions thus far.

    nc1: 2. Nobody, even minor party candidates whose name was on the presidential ballot were given standing for challenging Obama’s eligibility in courts. Possible violation of the Constitution was not considered an injury. Obama supporters agree with this viewpoint.

    Yes, I do agree with the Constitutional requirement for standing. You see, I’m one of those wierdos who believe that all of the Constitution should be upheld, not just those that are convenient for me at a given moment. You see for something as broad as what is generally known as “tax payer standing” the people have another from of redress. It’s called the ballot box. If you have real, concrete injury, you can sue. When you’re talking about a minor candidate like Keyes, who doesn’t have a snow ball’s chance in heck of winning, there is no concrete injury. I’m guessing Hillary Clinton would have had standing to sue, and probably John McCain, or even Sara Palin.

    nc1: Why should I believe your claim that violation of the state law and DoH policy is an injury to an individual? You applied double standard for defining an injury.

    Why should you believe it? You don’t have to. You can look it up. I just enjoy the benefit of having been to law school, so I know the difference. But there is no double standard. Obama has a reasonable expectation that his records will be kept private. Why? Because they do it for everyone else. By giving out information that they do not give on anyone else, he has suffered a very definable injury that is unique to him. Standing on some presumed “constitutional injury” is not particularized. Citizen standing is not particularized. We all suffer it the same way, therefore we have recourse in the ballot box. The injury to someone like Keyes is pretty remote. What exactly did he lose? Is anyone going to argue that if Obama had not been on the ballot we would be talking about President Keyes? I don’t think Keyes was on the ballot in enough states for it to have been mathematically possible for him to win. Can we even say that Keyes lost any votes because Obama was on the ballot?

  263. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 24, 2011 at 4:10 pm #

    nc1: Nobody, even minor party candidates whose name was on the presidential ballot were given standing for challenging Obama’s eligibility in courts.

    The problem these minor party candidates had was that they were not on the ballot in enough states to win the presidency. Since they couldn’t have won, they lost nothing by Obama being elected. Therefore they had no injury in fact, and could not sue in federal court.

    It almost seems like the birthers are intentionally filing the wrong case against the wrong defendants in the wrong court at the wrong time just so their meritless cases won’t get heard.

  264. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 24, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It almost seems like the birthers are intentionally filing the wrong case against the wrong defendants in the wrong court at the wrong time just so their meritless cases won’t get heard.

    It all depends on whether the lawyer in question is a competent con-man or an incompetent zealot…

  265. avatar
    Scientist March 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The problem these minor party candidates had was that they were not on the ballot in enough states to win the presidency. Since they couldn’t have won, they lost nothing by Obama being elected. Therefore they had no injury in fact, and could not sue in federal court.

    I think that a minor party candidate who got on the ballot himself, even if he had no real chance of winning, might well be able to sue iin state court if he felt one of the competing candidates was ineligible. A court would be hard pressed to say before an election that a candidate on the ballot (even Keyes) had no chance. Keyes could have sued in a California court before the election and probably have gotten a hearing. He would have llost, but he would have gotten a hearing. Forgive me for speculating that his failure to do so was deliberate.

  266. avatar
    obsolete March 24, 2011 at 5:20 pm #

    Suranis: “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate,” spokesman Janice Okubo said June 13, 2008, after we e-mailed her our copy.

    Okubo said a copy of the birth certificate was requested in June 2008, but she wouldn’t specify by whom. But as we know from our attempts to get the record in April 2008, Hawaii law states that only family members can access such records.”

    So now nc1 has the confirmation they want- Obama’s posted COLB is valid and was issued by Hawaii in June, 2008.

    That should satisfy any rational person, so I am assuming that nc1 won’t keep bringing up something as settled as this.

  267. avatar
    Rickey March 24, 2011 at 5:35 pm #

    JoZeppy:

    Standing on some presumed “constitutional injury” is not particularized.

    Yes, and that is a concept which NC1 has yet to grasp. For there to be standing the injury has to be concrete and particularized, and it has to be an injury for which the court can grant relief.

    The birthers haven’t even been able to allege a particularized injury-in-fact, which they have to do before they can even get to the question of whether there has been a violation of the Constitution.

    To put it into terms which NC1 might be able to understand, if you get into an auto accident you can’t successfully sue for pain and suffering if you have no evidence that you were injured. The other driver may have been drunk and may have run a red light, but a lawsuit is going nowhere if you have no damages.

  268. avatar
    Rickey March 24, 2011 at 5:48 pm #

    Scientist: I think that a minor party candidate who got on the ballot himself, even if he had no real chance of winning, might well be able to sue iin state court if he felt one of the competing candidates was ineligible.A court would be hard pressed to say before an election that a candidate on the ballot (even Keyes) had no chance.Keyes could have sued in a California court before the election and probably have gotten a hearing.He would have llost, but he would have gotten a hearing.Forgive me for speculating that his failure to do so was deliberate.

    Actually, Keyes did sue in state court. The California Court of Appeals ruled that not only does the Secretary of State have no duty to vet candidates, the Secretary of State also has no authority to deny a position on the general election ballot to a qualified party’s nominee, regardless of whether there is doubt about that nominee’s eligibility.

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2011/02/california-supreme-court-won%E2%80%99t-hear-keyes-v-bowen-on-presidential-qualifications/

    I continue to believe that no state has the authority to make a determination about the eligibility of a candidate for a Federal office. That authority lies solely with the Congress (and the voters, of course). The states probably can require that a candidate provide proof of citizenship as part of the filing process, but even if the states aren’t satisfied with the proof I believe they still have to put the candidate on the ballot.

  269. avatar
    Keith March 24, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: It’s been a very long time since I worked with ISAM, but I don’t think a unique key was required. I also used VSAM, BDAM and QSAM.

    Long time for me too. As I remember, ISAM did not ‘require’ a unique key, but depending on the application they could make your life much easier, and in practice a unique key was almost always assured by adding a sequence number field to the primary sort key.

    A partial key could be used for retrieval, thus ‘indexed, sequential’. You could use a partial key to ‘index into’ the file, positioning at the first record in a group, say ‘Smith’, then read sequentially through the Smiths until you found the correct one. One record is active at a time, so you could then update that record.

    Alternate indexes were possible, but expensive to maintain as I recall. That was, to me, the chief advantage of VSAM, it was quite good with handling alternate indexes.

  270. avatar
    Keith March 24, 2011 at 8:11 pm #

    nc1: LOL. How did they maintain records in 1961 if birth registration number was not used as a unique key?

    Using the only unique key that makes any sense in a manual system: name, birthdate, parents names.

    If Joe Bloggs asks for a copy of his birth certificate, he doesn’t have some computer generated unique key, or even the registration number. He has his name, his birthdate, and his parents names.

    That is the information that uniquely identifies him in both the manual system and the computer system for the purposes of data retrieval, not some random number assigned by a computer. We haven’t descended quite that far into science fiction distopia quite yet,

    I can think of no possible scenario where you would have the need to retrieve a data record by some anonymous key.

    But perhaps you think they’ve given everyone a number and taken away their name?

  271. avatar
    dunstvangeet March 25, 2011 at 1:19 am #

    obsolete: So now nc1 has the confirmation they want- Obama’s posted COLB is valid and was issued by Hawaii in June, 2008.

    That should satisfy any rational person, so I am assuming that nc1 won’t keep bringing up something as settled as this.

    Actually, the copy that Obama produced was issued in June of 2007. Okubo said that it’s valid, and a copy has been issued in June of 2008. It was not this copy, though.

  272. avatar
    nc1 March 25, 2011 at 1:44 am #

    Joey: Janice Okubo, Public Information Officer, Hawaii Department of Health in response to a question about Barack Obama’s COLB: ” Okubo also emphasized the certification form “contains all the information needed by all federal government agencies for transactions requiring a birth certificate.”She added that the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the state’s current certification of live birth “as an official birth certificate meeting all federal and other requirements.”The issue of what constitutes an official Hawaii birth certificate received national attention during last year’s presidential campaign. Those who doubted Barack Obama’s American citizenship called the copy of the Hawaii birth document posted on his campaign Web site a fake.Asked about that document, Okubo said, “This is the same certified copy everyone receives when they request a birth certificate.”
    From the article “Born Identity” in the Honolulu Star-Bulliten that has been posted on this site and linked many times over the last two years.

    Okubo’s last quote in Politifact article:

    “Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.””

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

    The DoH refuses to answer a direct question about issuing COLB copy to Obama on June 6, 2007.

  273. avatar
    nc1 March 25, 2011 at 3:15 am #

    JoZeppy: They have confirmed his birth certificate.They just haven’t used the magic words you want them to (how many different ways can they say he was born in Hawaii?).You are asking for them to release the registration number, which is something they do for no one else (which would be an unauthorized release of information), and give you confirmation that he purchase his birth certificate on a certain day, which I have yet to see any evidence that they even keep a record of that.I have yet to see anything that would give me reason to be suspicious of the state’s actions thus far.

    Yes, I do agree with the Constitutional requirement for standing.You see, I’m one of those wierdos who believe that all of the Constitution should be upheld, not just those that are convenient for me at a given moment.You see for something as broad as what is generally known as “tax payer standing” the people have another from of redress.It’s called the ballot box.If you have real, concrete injury, you can sue.When you’re talking about a minor candidate like Keyes, who doesn’t have a snow ball’s chance in heck of winning, there is no concrete injury.I’m guessing Hillary Clinton would have had standing to sue, and probably John McCain, or even Sara Palin.

    Why should you believe it?You don’t have to.You can look it up.I just enjoy the benefit of having been to law school, so I know the difference.But there is no double standard.Obama has a reasonable expectation that his records will be kept private.Why?Because they do it for everyone else.By giving out information that they do not give on anyone else, he has suffered a very definable injury that is unique to him.Standing on some presumed “constitutional injury” is not particularized.Citizen standing is not particularized.We all suffer it the same way, therefore we have recourse in the ballot box.The injury to someone like Keyes is pretty remote.What exactly did he lose?Is anyone going to argue that if Obama had not been on the ballot we would be talking about President Keyes?I don’t think Keyes was on the ballot in enough states for it to have been mathematically possible for him to win.Can we even say that Keyes lost any votes because Obama was on the ballot?

    I am sorry to hear that you went to a law school. Logical thinking ability is not your strength.

    To summarize your claim:
    There is no privacy violation when DoH publishes birth year as part of the birth index for all people on that list (law does not explicitly say that this information must be released).

    There is a privacy violation if DoH confirmed birth registration number previously published by Obama.

    What is the “concrete injury” to Obama?

    What is the meaning of word “is”?

  274. avatar
    nc1 March 25, 2011 at 3:25 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The problem these minor party candidates had was that they were not on the ballot in enough states to win the presidency. Since they couldn’t have won, they lost nothing by Obama being elected. Therefore they had no injury in fact, and could not sue in federal court.

    It almost seems like the birthers are intentionally filing the wrong case against the wrong defendants in the wrong court at the wrong time just so their meritless cases won’t get heard.

    Minor party candidate has no injury even if ineligible major party candidate was placed on the ballot. Compare this with JoZeppy’s claim that previously published registration number by Obama cannot be confirmed by DoH because it would constitute an injury to his privacy.

    Do you agree with Zeppy’s claim?

  275. avatar
    The Magic M March 25, 2011 at 4:08 am #

    > Logical thinking ability is not your strength.

    Bruahahahahahaha! Now that was a good one. You owe me a new keyboard and screen.

  276. avatar
    JoZeppy March 25, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    nc1: I am sorry to hear that you went to a law school. Logical thinking ability is not your strength. To summarize your claim:There is no privacy violation when DoH publishes birth year as part of the birth index for all people on that list (law does not explicitly say that this information must be released). There is a privacy violation if DoH confirmed birth registration number previously published by Obama.What is the “concrete injury” to Obama?What is the meaning of word “is”?

    coming from you, that’s not much of an insult.

    They do not include the year in the index. You’ll note that when the DoH published the President’s birth index inforation on line, it did not have a year. Some here have claimed that the index is a range of years. You claim it’s for a single year. Doesn’t really matter because the DoH Director has the ability by statute to authorize the release of other data they find appropriate. By publishing the index by year or span of years, everyone has a lowered expectation of privacy for the birth year (whether it be in a year, or range of years). No individual is suffering any particularized harm. The state does not release registration numbers for anyone. Everyone has the same expectation of privacy. To release the information for one citizen is violating that expectation of privacy. The President would be feeling a paricularized harm by the state that no other citizen has (in theory an equal protection vioation). The concrete injury is a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the breach of a recognized legal duty of the state to maintain the privacy of that information. What a person does with their personal information does not impact what the government’s duties are under the law. I give out my social security number to creditors every time I applied for credit. Since I freely give my information out to third parties, does that mean the government can now do the same? Certianly not. If I put it on a side of a bus, would that make a difference? No. It’s my personal information. It’s my perrogative to do with it as I please. Does that impact the legal duties of anyone else? In most cases, no. How hard is that to understand?

  277. avatar
    obsolete March 25, 2011 at 2:16 pm #

    dunstvangeet: obsolete: So now nc1 has the confirmation they want- Obama’s posted COLB is valid and was issued by Hawaii in June, 2008.

    That should satisfy any rational person, so I am assuming that nc1 won’t keep bringing up something as settled as this.

    Actually, the copy that Obama produced was issued in June of 2007. Okubo said that it’s valid, and a copy has been issued in June of 2008. It was not this copy, though.

    Correction noted, although birthers now have to argue that Obama has produced both a fake COLB and a genuine COLB, for reasons only a birther could understand.

    We still haven’t answered the obvious question- Why was Kenya recording births in Hawaii’s birth index? (and did they record more than just Obama’s?, if not, why just his?)

  278. avatar
    Thrifty March 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    From what I can tell, these registration numbers aren’t part of the birth index. They’re tracking numbers used to match the data in the index to a place within the index. I get this weird feeling that NC1 is the type of person who goes to the library searching for a copy of The Grapes of Wrath, but then gets infuriated that the closest thing available is “STE THE GRAPES OF WRATH”

  279. avatar
    Wile E. March 25, 2011 at 4:14 pm #

    Pardon the off-topic request, but I can’t seem to find an open…open-thread.

    Didn’t I read here somewhere that the State of Hawai’i had recently changed the heading on their computer generated BC’s from “CertificationOLB” to “CertificateOLB”? If so, can someone point me to that post?

    Or did I just dream that?

  280. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 25, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    Wile E.: Pardon the off-topic request, but I can’t seem to find an open…open-thread.

    Didn’t I read here somewhere that the State of Hawai’i had recently changed the heading on their computer generated BC’s from “CertificationOLB” to “CertificateOLB”? If so, can someone point me to that post?

    Or did I just dream that?

    You’re not dreaming.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/hawaii-acceeds-to-birther-demands/

  281. avatar
    Wile E. March 25, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You’re not dreaming.

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/07/hawaii-acceeds-to-birther-demands/

    Ah…yes. Thanks.

    Was there some sort of press release or memo or news article that explained the rationale behind this change? Or did you just become aware of the change by witnessing one of these new animals in the wild?

    Do you have any idea when this change took place? Are we to assume that if President Obama applied for another birth certificate that the new one would now say “CertificateOLB” at the top?

  282. avatar
    Thrifty March 25, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    nc1: Okubo’s last quote in Politifact article: “Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.””

    I always found that to be a particularly stupid thing for Okubo to say. I figured it was along the same lines as “We can never know for sure if what we experience is reality or if it’s all a complex computer generated simulation and we are all batteries in a supercomputer.”

    What do the other (sane) members of this community make of it? For my money, I’m going to continue believing the COLB is authentic until I get some kind of compelling reason to believe it’s not.

  283. avatar
    Thrifty March 25, 2011 at 5:26 pm #

    nc1: Okubo’s last quote in Politifact article: “Still, she acknowledges: “I don’t know that it’s possible for us to even say beyond a doubt what the image on the site represents.””

    I always found that to be a particularly stupid thing for Okubo to say. I figured it was along the same lines as “We can never know for sure if what we experience is reality or if it’s all a complex computer generated simulation and we are all batteries in a supercomputer.”

    What do the other (sane) members of this community make of it? For my money, I’m going to continue believing the COLB is authentic until I get some kind of compelling reason to believe it’s not.

  284. avatar
    bob March 25, 2011 at 7:01 pm #

    Thrifty: What do the other (sane) members of this community make of it? For my money, I’m going to continue believing the COLB is authentic until I get some kind of compelling reason to believe it’s not.

    She was saying, “There will always be doubters, who will always doubt regardless of what they are shown, and there is no way to change their minds.”

  285. avatar
    Suranis March 25, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    bob: She was saying, “There will always be doubters, who will always doubt regardless of what they are shown, and there is no way to change their minds.”

    That’s always been my reading. She was probably asked something like “Are you sure the Image is of the Birth Cert you sent out?” and like any intellectually honest person she said you can never be 100% sure of anything on the internet. Bt since this was right after she said flat out they issued a Birth cert for Obama very recently and that that’s an image of a valid Birth certificate, she has one just like it and that Obama was born in Hawaii, I don’t think what she was saying anything bad. Obama was eligible from what she said and the image was irrelevent, except as coroberatery evidence.

    Of course Birthers disregarded everything else she said and focused on that line. Because they are dishonest morons.

  286. avatar
    nc1 March 26, 2011 at 7:05 am #

    JoZeppy: coming fromyou, that’s not much of an insult.

    They do not include the year in the index.You’ll note that when the DoH published the President’s birth index inforation on line, it did not have a year.Some here have claimed that the index is a range of years.You claim it’s for a single year.Doesn’t really matter because the DoH Director has the ability by statute to authorize the release of other data they find appropriate.By publishing the index by year or span of years, everyone has a lowered expectation of privacy for the birth year (whether it be in a year, or range of years).No individual is suffering any particularized harm.The state does not release registration numbers for anyone.Everyone has the same expectation of privacy.To release the information for one citizen is violating that expectation of privacy.The President would be feeling a paricularized harm by the state that no other citizen has (in theory an equal protection vioation).The concrete injury is a violation of a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the breach of a recognized legal duty of the state to maintain the privacy of that information.What a person does with their personal information does not impact what the government’s duties are under the law.I give out my social security number to creditors every time I applied for credit.Since I freely give my information out to third parties, does that mean the government can now do the same?Certianly not.If I put it on a side of a bus, would that make a difference?No.It’s my personal information.It’s my perrogative to do with it as I please.Does that impact the legal duties of anyone else?In most cases, no.How hard is that to understand?

    Where did I claim that birth index is for a single year? I said that DoH offered to sell birth index for 1961.

    You claimed that DoH cannot publish anything other than things that were explicitly mentioned by law. Now you say that DoH director has flexibility to publish additional data. I am glad you finally came clean on that one.

    However, you are still trying to sell an idea that publishing birth year for thousands of people is less of a privacy violation than confirming the registration number (which has no meaning outside the DoH office) for a single person in case where this information was previously published by the same individual. In addition there is a significant public interest because individual is a presidential candidate.

    According to you the only injury to Obama would be that his feelings might be hurt.

    Please apply the same theory about Obama’s injury to Alan Keyes’ case. What about his expectation of competing in fair elections?

    SSN number analogy is not an appropriate one – it is not easy to find something as obscure and meaningless to the public as birth registration number is.

    Was Obama’s expectation of privacy violated when government confirmed his Selective Service registration?

  287. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy March 26, 2011 at 8:07 am #

    nc1: SSN number analogy is not an appropriate one – it is not easy to find something as obscure and meaningless to the public as birth registration number is.

    I am glad that you finally admit that you have been harping on something that is “meaningless to the public”. Before you were making “public interest” argument for the release of the information, and now we see you didn’t really believe it.

  288. avatar
    The Magic M March 26, 2011 at 8:21 am #

    > Please apply the same theory about Obama’s injury to Alan Keyes’ case. What about his expectation of competing in fair elections?

    If you’re going to run in the Tour de France, you still don’t have standing to compel the UCI to ban Contador because you wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell to finish anywhere bust last anyway.

    Besides, the elections would be “fair” even if no candidate was vetted at all. After all, it’s ultimately up to the voters to decide. If they wanted to not vote for non-vetted candidates, they are free to do so. If they want to vote only for candidates who have shown their long-form original bird sertificat plus their kindergarten records, they are free to do that. Nobody forces anyone to vote for a specific candidate.

    Your problem is simply that, despite all the polls you birthers love to quote, still the alleged “strong birther minority/majority” of the voters seems to give absolutely squat for your ideas.
    Actually, I have no idea if any of the people I’ve voted for in the last 20 years was ever a citizen of my country. I might even say “I have no idea where my chancellor was born” because I actually don’t (I’d have to check Wikipedia). Still that doesn’t make me not want to vote for her (there are other reasons for that).
    I also have no idea if my boss complies with all the rules required for an incorporated company. Still that doesn’t make me not want to work for him.

    So you can keep living in your dreamland of “150 million Americans are birthers” until the end of Obama’s second term. And we will keep on laughing about you all the while. ;)

  289. avatar
    nc1 March 26, 2011 at 2:57 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I am glad that you finally admit that you have been harping on something that is “meaningless to the public”. Before you weremaking “public interest” argument for the release of the information, and now we see you didn’t really believe it.

    You are judging on a single sentence taken out of context.

    Registration number is normally not interesting to the public. Not so in Obama’s case. Why? He published the COLB and partial verification of that document can be done by confirming the registration number.

    Such a confirmation would not violate Obama’s privacy. At the same time nobody can misuse this information to commit fraud because no other agency cares about it.

    From DoH’s perspective registration number has no practical value to an outside person. Refusal to confirm it in Obama’s case makes it even more obvious that they are covering for him.

  290. avatar
    Slartibartfast March 26, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    nc1: You are judging on a single sentence taken out of context.

    Anything you said after this was covered up by gales of laughter and the explosion of irony meters.

    You don’t deserve any additional information. You – personally – DO NOT DESERVE to know anything else about the president (just like a child molester doesn’t deserve to know anything about children living in their neighborhood).

    And as for judging based on things taken out of context – if you birthers don’t like it, why do you do it so much? (To give the most prominent example: All birther arguments regarding Vattel depend on massive (willful) ignorance of context.)