Main Menu

Hawaiian official confirms: Obama delivered by doctor

Stock photo

Former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, made this stunning revelation in an interview with NBC:

Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files –” and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.

Dr. Fukino emphasized: “It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that.” She reiterated that computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

Print Friendly

,

599 Responses to Hawaiian official confirms: Obama delivered by doctor

  1. avatar
    Sef April 10, 2011 at 2:29 pm #

    This quote from the article is also quite important”

    “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago. ”

  2. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 2:34 pm #

    I think the birthers are going to be very sorry that The Donald raised the profile of their issue in the national spotlight… Can’t wait to hear the crickets from the birhters on this thread. Come on guys – now we know what the ‘written down’ thing is – are you satisfied now?

  3. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 2:38 pm #

    Sef:
    This quote from the article is also quite important”

    “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago. ”

    Wow, another body blow to the birthers – this is great!

  4. avatar
    Sef April 10, 2011 at 2:39 pm #

    April 10, 2011. A day that will live in birther infamy!

  5. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 3:05 pm #

    Another quote from the article – nc1 will be so happy that this was confirmed! Maybe it will even vote for President Obama now… ;-)

    The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense.”)

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 3:11 pm #

    Slartibartfast: I think the birthers are going to be very sorry that The Donald raised the profile of their issue in the national spotlight… Can’t wait to hear the crickets from the birhters on this thread. Come on guys – now we know what the written down’ thing is – are you satisfied now?

    Of course folks like Ron Polland have called Fukino a liar, and that’s not going away. This revelation, however, trashes the whole relative registration theory and for anyone to continue to assert that they have to resort to “everybody’s lying,” forcing their group further into the fringe.

    If, as we presume, Arizona passes their birther bill, Barack Obama may well send them a copy of the long form, and this will be corroborated by Dr. Funkino before anyone can cry “forgery.”

    I am reminded of the quote from Lincoln that I used as my quote of the day recently where he says some things have to reach a crisis before they are resolved.

  7. avatar
    Gary Miller April 10, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    There. Now it’s settled. Totally put to bed.

  8. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    I expect a flood of apologies and contrition from birthers (now all ex-birthers) in this thread.

    How many more confirmations does nc1 need now?

    This should be a death blow to birtherism. Let the spinning begin.

  9. avatar
    Lil' Red April 10, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    Two things:

    1. Pay attention to what is quoted, and what is not.

    2. Dr. Fukino is not speaking under the authority of the State of Hawaii. She had full opportunity to clear up any portion of this debate when she was the Director of the Department of Health. She chose not to do that. Anything she says now is no more official than that which would be said by Dr. Conspiracy.

  10. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    Nice try at spin, Lil birther, until you step back and realize how bitter and ridiculous you sound.

    Give it up. It. Is. Over.

  11. avatar
    Mary Brown April 10, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    Lil' Red: Two things:1. Pay attention to what is quoted, and what is not.2. Dr. Fukino is not speaking under the authority of the State of Hawaii. She had full opportunity to clear up any portion of this debate when she was the Director of the Department of Health. She chose not to do that. Anything she says now is no more official than that which would be said by Dr. Conspiracy.

    Here we go again. Now tell me why would she make this up? It seems that she can speak more freely now that she is not in an official capacity. Get It? Probably not.

  12. avatar
    Sef April 10, 2011 at 3:21 pm #

    Lil' Red:
    Two things:

    1. Pay attention to what is quoted, and what is not.

    2. Dr. Fukino is not speaking under the authority of the State of Hawaii. She had full opportunity to clear up any portion of this debate when she was the Director of the Department of Health. She chose not to do that. Anything she says now is no more official than that which would be said by Dr. Conspiracy.

    L’il Red, are you the official birther denialist? If not, has your statement been cleared with Birther Central?

  13. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 3:22 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Of course folks like Ron Polland have called Fukino a liar, and that’s not going away. This revelation, however, trashes the whole relative registration theory and for anyone to continue to assert that they have to resort to “everybody’s lying,” forcing their group further into the fringe.

    I agree – it seriously blunts their ability to deceive others with their stock lies…

    If, as we presume, Arizona passes their birther bill, Barack Obama may well send them a copy of the long form, and this will be corroborated by Dr. Funkino before anyone can cry “forgery.”

    Which would leave Republican candidates who couldn’t meet this standard to challenge it in court (I’d love to see the birther press trying to spin that! ;-))

    I am reminded of the quote from Lincoln that I used as my quote of the day recently where he says some things have to reach a crisis before they are resolved.

    I’m guessing that the Obama camp would have rather Dr. Fukino didn’t make this statement (and likely precipitate a crisis) – at least until closer to the election – but it should still be every bit as amusing for the rest of us. I hope you’ve got plenty of popcorn on hand…

  14. avatar
    John Reilly April 10, 2011 at 3:26 pm #

    In response to Lil’ Red, it is clear that no information or proof will satisfy you.

    Nevertheless, Dr. Fukino is a percipient witness to what she did and what she saw. The fact that she is no longer employed by the State of Hawaii is meaningless as a matter of law. It is also meaningless to you, since when she was an official of the State birthers refused to believe her. Dr. Fukino could have testified endlessly, under oath, cross-examined by Ms. Dr. Taitz, and you would not have believed her.

    There never was any debate as to President Obama’s birthplace, as the certificate of live birth ended all rational debtate. Dr. Fukino’s prior official statements, as well as those of Governor Lingle and others, made clear what the truth is.

  15. avatar
    Lil' Red April 10, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Mary Brown: It seems that she can speak more freely now that she is not in an official capacity.

    You are absolutely correct! Now that she is not speaking in any official capacity, she can say whatever she wants.

    It is also important to observe that Dr. Fukino was not quoted to have said that Obama’s birth certificate was signed by a physician. That is something the writer of the article concluded. (Not that a quote from the ex-director would have been any better.)

    Why are all of you so upset? Did you really expect that anything less than documented evidence of birth in a hospital was going to end the controversy?

  16. avatar
    Sef April 10, 2011 at 3:30 pm #

    Lil' Red: end the controversy?

    ROTFLMAO!!!

  17. avatar
    Majority Will April 10, 2011 at 3:32 pm #

    Let the birther idiots squawk.

    They have proven time and again that they are far too stupid to understand why they are golden to the Obama campaign in the next election.

    Are Trump’s crack investigators Gary Busey and Meatloaf?

    Obama/Biden 2012.

  18. avatar
    John Reilly April 10, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    Documented proof will not end the controversey for Lil’ Red. As some folksd here have said, we are waiting for someone to say, “I will vote for President Obama if only he produces his original birth certificate.”

    So far, no such person has emerged.

    How about it, Lil’ Red?

  19. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 3:34 pm #

    Lil' Red:
    Two things:

    1. Pay attention to what is quoted, and what is not.

    2. Dr. Fukino is not speaking under the authority of the State of Hawaii. She had full opportunity to clear up any portion of this debate when she was the Director of the Department of Health. She chose not to do that. Anything she says now is no more official than that which would be said by Dr. Conspiracy.

    What an idiotic comment.
    This new interview simply backs up and further clarifies the two OFFICIAL statements that were released by Dr. Fukino when she was Director of Health for the state of Hawaii.
    Was Dr.C ever Director of Health for the state of Hawaii? Did Dr. C ever follow the instruction of the REPUBLICAN Governor of the state of Hawaii to go and personally view the long form, vault copy, original birth certificate in the files of the Department of Health?
    YOU may not accept Dr. Fukino’s statement, but I guarantee you that any Judge or any Congressional Committee sure will.
    And I’m betting that whenever Governor Abercrombie gets around to appointing a permanent replacement for Dr. Fukino, that Democratic appointee will back up Dr. Fukino’s statement OFFICIALLY.

  20. avatar
    Lil' Red April 10, 2011 at 3:38 pm #

    John Reilly: In response to Lil’ Red, it is clear that no information or proof will satisfy you.

    I just told you what would satisfy me. I want the Hawaii Department of Health to produce the original vital record for inspection. If it indicates that Obama was born in Kapiolani, and was attended to by a physician, I will be satisfied that he was born in Hawaii.

    Will that end the debate as to Obama being a natural born citizen? No!

    “Natural-born citizen; one who is a member of a state or nation by virtue of birth. Whether it is necessary to this that the father should be a citizen is disputed; those jurists who follow the doctrine of national character prevailing in continental Europe hold that it is; American jurists generally hold that it is not.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=UXnrfYX1IFEC&pg=PA1019&dq=%22whether+it+is+necessary+to+this+that+the+father+should+be+a+citizen%22&hl=en&ei=XDmLTbmaKs6EtgfF–CFDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22whether%20it%20is%20necessary%20to%20this%20that%20the%20father%20should%20be%20a%20citizen%22&f=false

    Unsettled law remains unsettled until decided by the Supreme Court or addressed by constitutional amendment.

  21. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 3:40 pm #

    Lil' Red: Why are all of you so upset? Did you really expect that anything less than documented evidence of birth in a hospital was going to end the controversy?

    No, I never thought anything would end the controversy, even including a certified copy of the hospital certificate. If they had a “long form” hard-core birthers would just call it a forgery and any Hawaiian official who corroborates it a liar. It’s all so predictable.

  22. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 3:42 pm #

    Mary Brown: Here we go again. Now tell me why would she make this up? It seems that she can speak more freely now that she is not in an official capacity. Get It? Probably not.

    I don’t think this interview has anything to do with her change in job, rather it’s a response to Donald Trump insulting the State.

  23. avatar
    Lil' Red April 10, 2011 at 3:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy,

    You should note that I said nothing about a certified long-form.

    I want the Hawaii Department of Health to present, for visual inspection by any member of the press or government official representing any state, the original vital record.

  24. avatar
    Sef April 10, 2011 at 3:45 pm #

    Lil' Red: I just told you what would satisfy me. I want the Hawaii Department of Health to produce the original vital record for inspection. If it indicates that Obama was born in Kapiolani, and was attended to by a physician, I will be satisfied that he was born in Hawaii.

    But the AG’s rep said that only Obama, himself, can view the record, so you is SOL.

  25. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 3:48 pm #

    I guess all that’s left is to rate the birther denials for style and substance…

    Lil' Red:
    Two things:
    1. Pay attention to what is quoted, and what is not.
    2. Dr. Fukino is not speaking under the authority of the State of Hawaii. She had full opportunity to clear up any portion of this debate when she was the Director of the Department of Health. She chose not to do that. Anything she says now is no more official than that which would be said by Dr. Conspiracy.

    Style: a cryptic suggestion (intended, I believe, to lend the author credibility for their supposed insightfulness) and several factual statements strung together in an attempt to spin the opposite of the rational conclusion. On a scale of 1 (say, the Bush v. Gore decision) to 10 (the Declaration of Independence), I give this a 0.01 (+ 0.05 for being the first birther apologist for a grand total of 0.06)

    Substance: a meaningless suggestion and an attempt at trying to spin facts into lies. On a scale of 0 (obviously false to any sentient life form) to 10 (as true as the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry)* I think that this rates about 10^(-10).

    *The most credible birther assertion is rumored to have scored a 10^(-5) on this scale – the reverend fake doctor Manning’s trial has a negative rating on this scale and it is not possible to grade Orly without using imaginary numbers…

  26. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    Lil' Red: I just told you what would satisfy me. I want the Hawaii Department of Health to produce the original vital record for inspection. If it indicates that Obama was born in Kapiolani, and was attended to by a physician, I will be satisfied that he was born in Hawaii.

    Will that end the debate as to Obama being a natural born citizen? No!

    Unsettled law remains unsettled until decided by the Supreme Court or addressed by constitutional amendment.

    Spiro Theodore Agnew, 39th Vice president of the united states, was born to a non citizen father and a citizen mother. According to the 12 amendment, the VP has the same candidacy restrictions as the President. His greek heritage was well known, in fact that’s what helped get him the VP slot. Not a single challenge to his eligibility or NBCness was made.

    Dont believe me? Agnew was born in 1918. heres a pic of the 1920 census

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_p5Ru9m0c4Ho/S05BipCq5GI/AAAAAAAAAJ0/6cNj7fCT_Sc/s1600-h/imageCAFPWLM0.jpg

    See lines 72-75, where just three lines above the entry for one-year-old Spiro Agnew, Theodore Agnew’s citizenship is clearly listed as “Alien”:

    Spin that, Lil red.

  27. avatar
    John Reilly April 10, 2011 at 3:50 pm #

    Lil’ Red just demonstrated that the goalposts have moved. Even if born in Hawaii, in a hospital, and attended by a physician, Lil’ Red now wants a judicial determination of the thoroughly discredited two-parent citizen argument. Apparently, Ankeny v. Daniels, which the losers declined to appeal to the United States Supreme Court, was not enough.

    One wonders if the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 if that would be sufficient, or does it have to be 9-0? Are there any other goalposts you want to move? Do you want to argue that the President renounced his citizenship in Indonesia? That he gave it up by going to Pakistan on a trip? Any other rules we should know?

    You are simply dedicated to proving that some folks opposed to President Obama will never accept him, and that their antipathy is irrational.

  28. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    Majority Will:
    Let the birther idiots squawk.

    They have proven time and again that they are far too stupid to understand why they are golden to the Obama campaign in the next election.

    Are Trump’s crack investigators Gary Busey and Meatloaf?

    Obama/Biden 2012.

    What do you have against Gary Busey and Meatloaf?

  29. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm #

    freerepublic.com already has FIVE duplicate threads up devoted to the Fukino interview. All of them tear into her with a vengence and attempt to parse her words to death. Naturally she’s now a “Democrat “even though she was an appointee of the previous Republican Governor and resigned her position when Neil Abercrombie’s administration took over!
    She’s also been “bought off” by Obama.

  30. avatar
    Lil' Red April 10, 2011 at 4:01 pm #

    John Reilly: Ankeny v. Daniels, which the losers declined to appeal to the United States Supreme Court

    Where did you go to law school, John? I’m guessing you did not.

    Since it’s your argument, I’ll ask you; On what grounds would the Supreme Court acquire jurisdiction over the Ankeny case? Was there a federal question presented in that case? Have you read the briefs, or did you just read the dicta of the Indiana Appellate Court?

  31. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    Lil' Red: Was there a federal question presented in that case?

    I’d say the eligibility of the president of the united states is a federal question.

    Notice that Lil Red has now shifted the conversation away from the Fukino DISASTER for his cause. quote skilled eh?

  32. avatar
    Lil' Red April 10, 2011 at 4:08 pm #

    Suranis: I’d say the eligibility of the president of the united states is a federal question.

    I’d say you have no idea what you are talking about. The Ankeny case had to do with the duty of the governor. That’s as far as it goes. Once the appellate court determined that the governor had no duty to determine eligibility, the case was over. They could have applied for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, but the decision would have been the same. -i.e. The Governor had no duty to verify the eligibility of the candidates.

  33. avatar
    nc1 April 10, 2011 at 4:11 pm #

    Obsolete:
    I expect a flood of apologies and contrition from birthers (now all ex-birthers) in this thread.

    How many more confirmations does nc1 need now?

    This should be a death blow to birtherism. Let the spinning begin.

    Trust but verify.

    Dr. Fukino claimed in 2009 that Obama was a natural born citizen. Not much has changed.
    Short of publishing the copy of the original birth certificate we are still waiting for the official confirmation whether COLB was issued by the DoH.
    Have they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama on June 6, 2007?
    Does the registration number 10641 belong to Obama?

    Dr. Fukino had many chances to answer these questions while she was the director of DoH. She chose not to.

    DoH representative (Okubo) lied to AP writer Mark Niesse when she claimed that birth index for 1961 could be purchased from DoH for $98.75.

    Lying about trivial things does not make any sense if the official birthplace story were true.

  34. avatar
    john April 10, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    Article contains several lies and misstatements. Just what is a “Record of Live Birth”? Is Hawaii simply making this stuff up as we go along. Where is Obama’s CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH????

    The article also mentions that long-form Birth Certificates are unobtainable. This is Bull! Miki Booth just obtained a long-form birth certificate a couple of weeks ago. The Hawaii AG appears to be lying.

    The following also appears to be a lie:

    “The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said.”

    The COLB was dated June 2007. During this time there were little or no persons wondering about Obama’s birthplace. I find it hard to believe the Obama camp would get the COLB for this reason and then wait a year before producing it.

    Mario Apuzzo also points out the fact that if this was true, then this would be considered an official state transaction and the State of Hawaii would have a record of it. To date, Hawaii has never able to provide any evidence that a COLB was ever requested.

    Finally, Dr. Fukino’s statement doesn’t sound credible given the cryptic and vague statements made by Governor Neil Abercrombie.

    If Fukino says what is true, then I would find it hard to believe that Neil Abercrombie would not have been evasive, vague and tightlipped as we were lead to believe.

    [I approved this comment from James because it contains a reasonable point about the 2007 certificate application and why Obama should be "testy" in 2007. Doc.]

  35. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 4:21 pm #

    Lil' Red: I’d say you have no idea what you are talking about. The Ankeny case had to do with the duty of the governor. That’s as far as it goes. Once the appellate court determined that the governor had no duty to determine eligibility, the case was over. They could have applied for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, but the decision would have been the same. -i.e. The Governor had no duty to verify the eligibility of the candidates.

    *yawn*

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

    “B.
    Natural Born Citizen
    Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John
    McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, “[t]he Governor . . . should [have been] prohibited by order of [the trial court] . . . from issuing any certificate of ascertainment, or any other certified statement, under the State Seal of the State of Indiana… .” Appellants’ Appendix at 13″

    Thus eligibility was one of the things the court was asked to address. TOmake it even clearer.

    “The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on
    constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States’ and a „natural born Citizen,’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President”

    Their conclusion.. and I an cutting out a very detailed discussion with lots of case law, you should actually read it

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

    The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs’ case.”

    Is that clear enough for you, Lil’Red? The court had the eligibility issue brought before it and it ruled. The thing you are talking about is the FIRST of the issues decided. Eligibility was the second.

    Spin this.

  36. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 4:23 pm #

    Sef: “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.
    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    This is the worth re-iterating. To those who say, “Obama, just release the original” HE CAN’T.

    HE CAN’T

    HE CAN’T

    That is the law in Hawaii. Is Hawaii unique in this regard? I doubt it. That means that other candidates born in other states will probably be unable to release original documents either. Effectively the biirthers are saying if you have a b.c issued many years ago, maybe you can run. If you lost it, too bad. Sort of like saying if I lose my wallet with my driver’s license in it I CAN NEVER DRIVE AGAIN.

    The stupidity boggles the mind.

  37. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    the Birtherville excuse Marathon has now officially started with nc1′s silly entry, Keep it up, we need the laughs! Again, the mentally challeged have to believe in the conspiracy, how else can they explain the muslim usurper. Funny Stuff, next nc1 witl be shouting “I didn’t come from no monkey”, she needs to join Goldline!

  38. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 4:27 pm #

    nc1: Trust but verify.

    Dr. Fukino claimed in 2009 that Obama was a natural born citizen. Not much has changed.
    Short of publishing the copy of the original birth certificate we are still waiting for the official confirmation whether COLB was issued by the DoH.

    “But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago. ”

    But even if the lord Jesus himself burned it onto your forehead with a finger of fire, you wouldn’t believe it.

    <blockquote.DoH representative (Okubo) lied to AP writer Mark Niesse when she claimed that birth index for 1961 could be purchased from DoH for $98.75.

    A birther ordered it and you started bitching about lack of index numbers. Remember?

  39. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 4:30 pm #

    As for the Vatteliist arguments they will get zero traction among the voters at large. Joe Sixpack can understand being born in the US vs outside. He might even be induced to care (somewhat debatable). But Swiss philosophers? You gotta be joking.

    I sincerely doubt the b.c. ever swayed any votes. I am still looking to find even a single one. But the Vattelist crappola, I can absolutely guarantee you will never in a million years sway a single vote.

    Donald Trump, Dr Fukino just fired you!

  40. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 4:39 pm #

    Suranis: *yawn*

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/22488868/ANKENY-v-GOVERNOR-OF-THE-STATE-OF-INDIANA-APPEALS-COURT-OPINION-11120903

    “B.
    Natural Born Citizen
    Second, the Plaintiffs argue that both President Barack Obama and Senator John
    McCain are not “natural born Citizens” as required for qualification to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 49 of the U.S. Constitution, and that therefore because neither person was constitutionally eligible to become President, “[t]he Governor . . . should [have been] prohibited by order of [the trial court] . . . from issuing any certificate of ascertainment, or any other certified statement, under the State Seal of the State of Indiana… .” Appellants’ Appendix at 13‘

    Thus eligibility was one of the things the court was asked to address. TOmake it even clearer.

    “The Plaintiffs in the instant case make a different legal argument based strictly on
    constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that “[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a „citizen of the United States’ and a „natural born Citizen,’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.” Appellants’ Brief at 23. With regard to President Barack Obama, the Plaintiffs posit that because his father was a citizen of the United Kingdom, President Obama is constitutionally ineligible to assume the Office of the President”

    Their conclusion.. and I an cutting out a very detailed discussion with lots of case law, you should actually read it

    “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”

    The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century. To the extent that these authorities conflict with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of what it means to be a natural born citizen, we believe that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fall under the category of “conclusory, non-factual assertions or legal conclusions” that we need not accept as true when reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Irish, 864 N.E.2d at 1120. Thus, we cannot say that the trial court erred when it dismissed the Plaintiffs’ case.”

    Is that clear enough for you, Lil’Red? The court had the eligibility issue brought before it and it ruled. The thing you are talking about is the FIRST of the issues decided. Eligibility was the second.

    Spin this.

    It’s kind of pathetic that birthers like Lil’ Red try to lie so blatantly even though they know that they are going to get busted for lying by folks here who have the facts and know the truth.
    The “B” section of Ankeny v Governor dealing with natural born citizenship has been posted on this blog scores of times.

  41. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    Doc,

    This thread is a fun treat for a Sunday afternoon – thanks!

    Lil' Red: I’d say you have no idea what you are talking about. The Ankeny case had to do with the duty of the governor. That’s as far as it goes. Once the appellate court determined that the governor had no duty to determine eligibility, the case was over. They could have applied for transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, but the decision would have been the same. -i.e. The Governor had no duty to verify the eligibility of the candidates.

    Do you understand the appellate process? The case could have been appealed until it was scheduled for conference at the SCOTUS. Upon denial of cert, the SCOTUS would have implicitly ruled that the original opinion was Constitutional. Most of us here believe that the fact that this wasn’t done speaks volumes about the birther movement.

  42. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    The NBC article mentioned here is currently the number one viewed article on their web site with 337,000 views so far, and 3,000 comments. I left a comment correcting their spelling of Dr. Fukino’s name (once it is “Fukimo”).

  43. avatar
    Reality Check April 10, 2011 at 4:50 pm #

    I think we all knew this would not end well for Trump.

  44. avatar
    Reality Check April 10, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    “Ludicrous” and “birther” in the same sentence flows very well. Doesn’t it?

  45. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 4:56 pm #

    nc1: Trust but verify.

    Dr. Fukino claimed in 2009 that Obama was a natural born citizen. Not much has changed.

    Nope – President Obama is STILL a natural born citizen.

    Short of publishing the copy of the original birth certificate we are still waiting for the official confirmation whether COLB was issued by the DoH.
    Have they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama on June 6, 2007?

    Slartibartfast: The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense.”)

    Does the registration number 10641 belong to Obama?

    Probably, but no one cares (no rational person cares, anyway…)

    Dr. Fukino had many chances to answer these questions while she was the director of DoH. She chose not to.

    So what?

    DoH representative (Okubo) lied to AP writer Mark Niesse when she claimed that birth index for 1961 could be purchased from DoH for $98.75.

    Where is your evidence she was lying (rather than mistaken)? Even if she did lie, so what? Considering the birthers behavior towards the Hawai’i DOH it would be perfectly understandable.

    Lying about trivial things does not make any sense if the official birthplace story were true.

    Yet birthers lie about things (trival and otherwise) every time they draw breath – that does not make any sense unless they are a bunch of stupid or ignorant bigots trying to pursue an agenda that reeks of racism by any means which they can.

  46. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I think we all knew this would not end well for Trump.

    It’s ending a little prematurely for Trump (his show isn’t quite done for the season…), but I wouldn’t say it’s ending badly (for him, anyway – it’s obviously another epic fail for the birthers…). As they say, there is no bad publicity…

  47. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 5:04 pm #

    I don’t think its ending at all frankly. They will wipe this from their brain and continue like nothing has happened

  48. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    “Are Trump’s crack investigators Gary Busey and Meatloaf?”
    .
    according to fogbow, it is j corsi, the lord of WND

  49. avatar
    sarina April 10, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    That means Miki Booth is lying and that her birth certificate is a FAKE.

  50. avatar
    Reality Check April 10, 2011 at 5:06 pm #

    Suranis:
    I don’t think its ending at all frankly. They will wipe this from their brain and continue like nothing has happened

    No, but this will be brought up on every future interview that Trump gives from this point forward. Trump will have to call a fellow Republican a liar or go Vattel. Neither is a viable choice.

  51. avatar
    gorefan April 10, 2011 at 5:07 pm #

    nc1: DoH representative (Okubo) lied to AP writer Mark Niesse when she claimed that birth index for 1961 could be purchased from DoH for $98.75.

    In an e-mail to Butterdezillion, the HDOH said that she could buy a copy of the computer print out of index data for $98.75. Could that be what Ms. Okubo was describing?

  52. avatar
    nc1 April 10, 2011 at 5:21 pm #

    gorefan: In an e-mail to Butterdezillion, the HDOH said that she could buy a copy of the computer print out of index data for $98.75.Could that be what Ms. Okubo was describing?

    Okubo said the same thing to Mark Niesse and he included it in his article that was published in August 2010. However, when Butterdezillion tried to actually pay for it the DoH refused to take money. They changed their story and claimed that only a five year cumulative birth index could be obtained.

  53. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 5:24 pm #

    john: The COLB was dated June 2007. During this time there were little or no persons wondering about Obama’s birthplace. I find it hard to believe the Obama camp would get the COLB for this reason and then wait a year before producing it.

    I think you have a good point. In conversations with a reporter covering the Obama campaign, the campaign staff were described as “testy” in August of 2008 over questions about the certificate, but these were not about Obama personally.

  54. avatar
    Lil' Red April 10, 2011 at 5:27 pm #

    suranis,

    You and your buddy Slartibartfast don’t understand what you are talking about.

    The Ankeny case could have been disposed of without answering any federal question. Just because the Court of Appeals decided to give us their (poorly reasoned) opinion does not make it a case in which a federal question must be answered in order for it to be disposed of.

    Let’s take a look at how the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted ARK just one year after SCOTUS handed down their decision.

    “lf appellant was born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of her birth, were subjects of the emperor of China, but had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and were here carrying on business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, she would become at the time of her birth a citizen of the United States, and be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities, as such, including her right to land and remain in the United States.” -Lee Sing Far v United States (1899)

    —It should be noted that the COA affirmed the lower court’s ruling against citizenship in Lee Sing Far. The lower court denied Lee Sing Far citizenship because they did not consider the witnesses, who claimed to be present when Far was born, to be reliable.

    Who witnesses Obama’s birth? -To date, only one person has claimed to have witnessed Obama’s birth. That is Mama Sarah. While there is discrepancy as to where that birth took place, no one has claimed that she was not present (as she stated). If it was in Hawaii, it should be pretty to establish that she had a passport.

    Or are you guys going to say that Mama Sarah lied, and was not present when Obama was born? On what gounds are you going to consider her claim to have witnessed the birth to be unreliable?

    The birth of a grandchild is a significant event in the life of a grandmother. She knows which grandchild’s birth she was there for.

    Did Obama’s Father have a permanent domicile and residence here? No! He was here on a student visa. His intent was to return to Kenya when he finished his education.

    Obama’s citizenship, even if he was born in Hawaii, is unsettled law. It’s obvious that it is not a problem for any of you, but there are others who would like the Court to settle the matter.

  55. avatar
    Tarrant April 10, 2011 at 5:32 pm #

    Perhaps the fact that the Court has rejected a dozen cases reflects the fact that in their minds it IS settled, and that those who claim it is not are simply mistaken? Consider it. The fact that you claim it is not settled does not make it so.

  56. avatar
    nc1 April 10, 2011 at 5:35 pm #

    sarina:
    “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    That means Miki Booth is lying and that her birth certificate is a FAKE.

    Could you or anyone else point out the law preventing the release of the original birth certifiate to the preson who requests his own record? If there is no such law – the UIPA law allows the release of any record maintained by a government agency.

    Wisch’s claim flies in the face of common sense – we can ask for FBI’s records about us yet DoH birth certificate is a secretive document?

  57. avatar
    katahdin April 10, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    Lil' Red: Or are you guys going to say that Mama Sarah lied, and was not present when Obama was born? On what gounds are you going to consider her claim to have witnessed the birth to be unreliable?

    Since Mrs. Obama never said that the president was born in Kenya, and never claimed to have been present for his birth, why would any rational person call her a liar? She not only never claimed that, she is on record in other interviews as saying she first heard about the future president’s birth via a letter from her son, sent from Hawaii.

  58. avatar
    DP April 10, 2011 at 5:47 pm #

    Lil' Red: suranis,You and your buddy Slartibartfast don’t understand what you are talking about.The Ankeny case could have been disposed of without answering any federal question. Just because the Court of Appeals decided to give us their (poorly reasoned) opinion does not make it a case in which a federal question must be answered in order for it to be disposed of.Let’s take a look at how the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted ARK just one year after SCOTUS handed down their decision.“lf appellant was born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of her birth, were subjects of the emperor of China, but had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and were here carrying on business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, she would become at the time of her birth a citizen of the United States, and be entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities, as such, including her right to land and remain in the United States.” -Lee Sing Far v United States (1899)—It should be noted that the COA affirmed the lower court’s ruling against citizenship in Lee Sing Far. The lower court denied Lee Sing Far citizenship because they did not consider the witnesses, who claimed to be present when Far was born, to be reliable.Who witnesses Obama’s birth? -To date, only one person has claimed to have witnessed Obama’s birth. That is Mama Sarah. While there is discrepancy as to where that birth took place, no one has claimed that she was not present (as she stated). If it was in Hawaii, it should be pretty to establish that she had a passport.Or are you guys going to say that Mama Sarah lied, and was not present when Obama was born? On what gounds are you going to consider her claim to have witnessed the birth to be unreliable?The birth of a grandchild is a significant event in the life of a grandmother. She knows which grandchild’s birth she was there for.Did Obama’s Father have a permanent domicile and residence here? No! He was here on a student visa. His intent was to return to Kenya when he finished his education.Obama’s citizenship, even if he was born in Hawaii, is unsettled law. It’s obvious that it is not a problem for any of you, but there are others who would like the Court to settle the matter.

    This pathetic grasping at any set of straws you can try to tie together in some mishapen form simply reveals a mind that needs Obama to be illegitimate for psychological reasons of its own.

  59. avatar
    gorefan April 10, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    Lil' Red: On what gounds are you going to consider her claim to have witnessed the birth to be unreliable?

    On the grounds that she said he was born in Hawaii, not in Kenya. You really do have to listen to the entire tape or read the entire transcript.

  60. avatar
    nc1 April 10, 2011 at 5:52 pm #

    richCares:
    the Birtherville excuse Marathon has now officially started with nc1′s silly entry, Keep it up, we need the laughs! Again, the mentally challeged have to believe in the conspiracy, how else can they explain the muslim usurper. Funny Stuff, next nc1 witl be shouting “I didn’t come from no monkey”, she needs to join Goldline!

    Please tell me when did Obama’s presidential campaign start?
    According to the article:

    “…Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said…”

    There were no questions about Obama’s eligibility in June 2007. Why would they feel the need to put the nonexistent issue to rest? More BS from Obama’s camp, business as usual.
    Isikoff needs to ask the anonimous campaign official for a little clarification.

  61. avatar
    Lil' Red April 10, 2011 at 5:55 pm #

    Tarrant: Perhaps the fact that the Court has rejected a dozen cases reflects the fact that in their minds it IS settled, and that those who claim it is not are simply mistaken? Consider it. The fact that you claim it is not settled does not make it so.

    Congratulations! You have demonstrated your level of competency to discuss jurisprudence.

    Cases that are dismissed on standing are not decided on the merits; no matter how much idiots want to believe that to be the case. The only precedent set by the affirmation of such dismissals is that others who are similiarly situated would also lack standing.

    Unsettled law does not miraculously become settled law just because no one with standing presents a case. It must be a decision on the merits before it can be considered to be settled law.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 5:56 pm #

    Lil' Red: On what grounds would the Supreme Court acquire jurisdiction over the Ankeny case? Was there a federal question presented in that case? Have you read the briefs, or did you just read the dicta of the Indiana Appellate Court?

    A question is not an argument.

  63. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    nc1: Could you or anyone else point out the law preventing the release of the original birth certifiate to the preson who requests his own record?If there is no such law – the UIPA law allows the release of any record maintained by a government agency.

    Wisch’s claim flies in the face of common sense – we can ask for FBI’s records about us yet DoH birth certificate is a secretive document?

    Here’s a link to the statute.
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM

    It is obvious that the previous Attorney General, Mark Bennett’s interpretation and the new Attorney General, David Louie’s interpretation is that “certified copy” in the law refers to a Certification of Live Birth, not an original long form, vault copy birth certificate.
    However a court or a congressional committee could issue a subpoena for the original document and the Attorney General’s office in Hawaii would have to figure out how they would respond to such a court order.
    My money would be on a sworn deposition from the Registrar of Vital Records or the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health as to the information on an original birth record would suffice for any judge or congressional committee.

  64. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm #

    Lil' Red: Congratulations! You have demonstrated your level of competency to discuss jurisprudence.

    Cool the ad hominen.

  65. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think you have a good point. In conversations with a reporter covering the Obama campaign, the campaign staff were described as “testy” in August of 2008 over questions about the certificate, but these were not about Obama personally.

    Your link referred to Obama as “testy”:

    The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense.”)

    How could he be testy about putting the issue to rest in 2007?

  66. avatar
    Lil' Red April 10, 2011 at 6:04 pm #

    Is this “make it up as you go night”?

    Taken from this site:

    Ogombe to Sarah Obama: Alikuma zalima Obama [unintelligible].
    Kweli Shuhudia: He is asking her, he wants to know something was ah she present when he was born?
    Ogombe: Yes. She says, “Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/obamas-grandmother-says-he-was-born/

    Now who here is going to say that Mama Sarah lied about being present when Obama was born? You can spin the location any which way you want, but she did say she was there.

    If it was Hawaii. -Prove that she even had a passport.

  67. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 6:07 pm #

    “Mama Sarah lied about being present ”
    give it up, or at least quote her as saying “..he was born in Hawaii”

  68. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 6:11 pm #

    Lil' Red:
    Is this “make it up as you go night”?

    Taken from this site:

    Ogombe to Sarah Obama: Alikuma zalima Obama [unintelligible].
    Kweli Shuhudia: He is asking her, he wants to know something was ah she present when he was born?
    Ogombe: Yes. She says, “Yes she was! She was present when Obama was born.”

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2008/12/obamas-grandmother-says-he-was-born/

    Now who here is going to say that Mama Sarah lied about being present when Obama was born? You can spin the location any which way you want, but she did say she was there.

    If it was Hawaii. -Prove that she even had a passport.

    Here, maybe this will help with your confusion:
    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf

  69. avatar
    That Other Mike April 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm #

    Lil' Red: Cases that are dismissed on standing are not decided on the merits; no matter how much idiots want to believe that to be the case. The only precedent set by the affirmation of such dismissals is that others who are similiarly situated would also lack standing.

    actually, they are; one of the key components of a case being taken up by a court is that there is a case to answer – that there is a case or controversy. There cannot be an actual case or controversy without an injured party or a remedy; standing being only given when there is a case to answer, without there being standing, there is no case. You lose.

    Unsettled law does not miraculously become settled law just because no one with standing presents a case. It must be a decision on the merits before it can be considered to be settled law.

    For sure. But to pretend that the citizenship of someone born on American soil who is not the child of a diplomat is unsettled law is foolish at best, and deliberately ignorant at worst. You lost this argument 113 years ago, pal.

  70. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 6:29 pm #

    Lil' Red: The Ankeny case could have been disposed of without answering any federal question. Just because the Court of Appeals decided to give us their (poorly reasoned) opinion does not make it a case in which a federal question must be answered in order for it to be disposed of.

    You may call it poorly-reasoned, but just about every law review article that talks about presidential eligibility states that those born in the US are eligible and then go on to talk about the issues for others.

    I would agree that the Supreme Court wouldn’t touch the case for any number of reasons, even if Obama’s eligibility where the holding instead of the alternate holding.

    As for your comments about the step-grandmother’s statement, you should read the full transcript here:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/03/sarah-obama-speaks/

    MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was gonna go by and see where he was born.

    VOICE (background): It was Hawaii.
    VOICE OF MRS. OBAMA OR ANOTHER WOMAN (background): Hawaii.
    BROTHER TOM (background): Hawaii, yeah?
    VOICE OF MRS. OBAMA OR ANOTHER WOMAN (background): Yeah.
    TRANSLATOR OGOMBE (background): Yes.
    TRANSLATOR OGOMBE (to McRae): Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii.
    MCRAE: OK.
    TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Yeah, in 1960 this was Hawaii, where his father, his father was also marrying there. This was Hawaii.
    MCRAE: OK.
    TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Yeah.
    MCRAE: Was, was, was Mrs. Obama, was sh–was she present? Was, was Mrs. Obama, see I thought you said she was present. Was she, was, was she, was she able to see him being, being born in, in Hawaii?
    TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: Because, because the grandmother was married here in Kenya, and Obama was born in America, oh yeah, so his son, the little Obama, was marrying, was marrying, in America, in United States.
    MCRAE: Oh, OK, fine. I mean, I–I just, I misunderstood what she was saying. I thought you said she was present when he was born.
    TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: No, not present there. The present with me here was tonight. Not present so she can leave. No she was here in Kenya while he, uh, her son, the little Obama, was marrying in America. And, uh, he be present if it–
    WOMAN’S VOICE (background): It was in Hawaii.
    TRANSLATOR OGOMBE: –was in America there, why are they for

  71. avatar
    john April 10, 2011 at 6:37 pm #

    The translation is useless Doc. Dr. Corsi brought the actual recording to Kenya where natives familiar with Sarah Obama’s dialect listened to the tape. On the tape there is commotion in the background. The commotion is the family members trying to change Sarah Obama’s statement and Sarah’s Obama insistance [sic] that she was present when Obama was born. This is supported by both affidavitts [sic] filed by both the priest and the translator. I imagine Corsi will be dscussing [sic] this in his book.

    [Let's see, Jerome Corsi left for Kenya on October 2, 2008 and returned around October 11, 2008. The affidavit of Kweli Shuhubia filed by Phil Berg says that the phone interview was conducted on October 16, 2008.

    You know, I really don't think that Dr. Corsi took a copy of a recording that hadn't yet been made with him to Kenya. Do you follow my logic here? Stuff like this is why I don't let you post here. You just make stuff up and it's a distraction. Doc.]

  72. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 6:42 pm #

    charo: Your link referred to Obama as “testy”:

    The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity. (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense.”)

    How could he be testy about putting the issue to rest in 2007?

    I’m just guessing but it might be because he didn’t like the idea of having to prove his U.S citizenship to his political opposition.

  73. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 6:43 pm #

    Based upon the comment

    “Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said.

    there is some kind of bullsh*t going on. It would have been better to use the line that he wanted it ready in case he needed it for campaign purposes. Fukino has come out and said EVERYTHING but the COLB on FactCheck was issued by her office. State Department records show that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is some kind of cover-up going on, and it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with a Hawaiian birth. Fukino is covered on all grounds if there was a false certificate generated. All of her statements are carefully crafted. She has said nothing wrong. She has no legal obligation to pursue fraud. She never obstructed justice because there was never an investigation. The issue seems likely to be the father listed on the certificate. Maybe it was absent. My purpose is not to scandalize but figure out why the lying. Ladysforest has evidence that the index with Obama’s information is the only index printed without a header. Explained away as an anomaly? What about this I just discovered this from Ladysforest blog:

    Race and color
    Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
    vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese,
    Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
    (combined), and “other nonwhite.”
    The category “white” includes, in addition to persons

    http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf

    There is no African listing, even if Stanley Ann wanted to use that race indicator.

    Bullsh*t is going on with the certificate.

  74. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 6:44 pm #

    Joey: I’m just guessing but it might be because he didn’t like the idea of having to prove his U.S citizenship to his political opposition.

    Joey,

    It wasn’t issue in 2007. Wake up.

  75. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 6:50 pm #

    Lil' Red: The Ankeny case could have been disposed of without answering any federal question.

    Perhaps, but the fact is, it DID answer a federal question.

    Obama, still president.

  76. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 6:52 pm #

    page 231 of the Vital Statistics link

  77. avatar
    DP April 10, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    charo: Based upon the comment “Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said.there is some kind of bullsh*t going on. It would have been better to use the line that he wanted it ready in case he needed it for campaign purposes. Fukino has come out and said EVERYTHING but the COLB on FactCheck was issued by her office. State Department records show that Obama was born in Hawaii. There is some kind of cover-up going on, and it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with a Hawaiian birth. Fukino is covered on all grounds if there was a false certificate generated. All of her statements are carefully crafted. She has said nothing wrong. She has no legal obligation to pursue fraud. She never obstructed justice because there was never an investigation. The issue seems likely to be the father listed on the certificate. Maybe it was absent. My purpose is not to scandalize but figure out why the lying. Ladysforest has evidence that the index with Obama’s information is the only index printed without a header. Explained away as an anomaly? What about this I just discovered this from Ladysforest blog:Race and colorBirths in the United States in 1961 are classified forvital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese,Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian(combined), and “other nonwhite.”The category “white” includes, in addition to personshttp://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdfThere is no African listing, even if Stanley Ann wanted to use that race indicator.Bullsh*t is going on with the certificate.

    She’s never actually examined the hard copy, [insult deleted. Doc.]. What she has said repeatedly is that it looks like the kind of certificates Hawaii issues and she’s checked the information on file from which it derives. That’s enough for sane people.

    Her statements only seem carefully crafted to a nut like you because poor Ms. Fukino, like most of us, is not in the habit of filtering her words to imagine how they would come across to irrational lunatics.

    The race issue has been covered by others as well. It was not legally required to say Negro, Obama’s father was African, and they have a habit of referring to themselves as Africans or Kenyans (in this case), not Negroes. That you fail to realize something so elementary is testament your own ethnocentric racial blinders, nothing else.

  78. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    Lil' Red: Congratulations! You have demonstrated your level of competency to discuss jurisprudence.

    Cases that are dismissed on standing are not decided on the merits; no matter how much idiots want to believe that to be the case. The only precedent set by the affirmation of such dismissals is that others who are similiarly situated would also lack standing.

    Unsettled law does not miraculously become settled law just because no one with standing presents a case. It must be a decision on the merits before it can be considered to be settled law.

    Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana was dismissed for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
    The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal by the trial court on those grounds. The Indiana Supreme Court refused to review the Appeals Court’s decision.
    With regard to “natural born citizen,” the Indiana Court of Appeals relied on the “guidance provided by {US v}Wong Kim Ark (1898) as “stare decisis” (settled law) for their decision. The Indiana Court of Appeals noted that Wong Kim Ark has been cited in more than 1,000 subsequent cases according to Westlaw.
    The federal issue involved that could have gone to the US Supreme Court was the awarding of Indiana’s Electoral College votes to either Barack Obama or John McCain if they were not natural born citizens under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the US Constitution.

  79. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 6:55 pm #

    Joey: I’m just guessing but it might be because he didn’t like the idea of having to prove his U.S citizenship to his political opposition.

    The original story was that they got the certificates in case they needed them, I presume for state filings. We still don’t know for sure that a birth certificate wasn’t filed with some state.

  80. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 7:01 pm #

    charo:
    page 231 of the Vital Statistics link

    From the November 1, 2008 update of the factcheck.org article “Born in the USA:”
    “Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as “African”? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.” It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.”

  81. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The original story was that they got the certificates in case they needed them, I presume for state filings. We still don’t know for sure that a birth certificate wasn’t filed with some state.

    Yeah Doc. I was only speculating about the “testy” comment.

  82. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    charo: Bullsh*t is going on with the certificate.

    charo- On this we agree. The response of you and Lil’ Red and all of the birther crew to the plain, simple and obvious truth is indeed Bullsh*t.

  83. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 7:03 pm #

    charo:
    Based upon the comment
    Race and color
    Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
    vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese,
    Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
    (combined), and “other nonwhite.”
    The category “white” includes, in addition to persons

    http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf

    There is no African listing, even if Stanley Ann wanted to use that race indicator.

    Bullsh*t is going on with the certificate.

    bah, what is it with you birthers? This is a statistical chart. Its explaining the categories they put births into for their report. Nothing here has the force of law or is any kind of regulation in this. its just an internal categorization for this statistical report.

    basicly they stuck all blacks into the negro bit on the birth statistics. it does not mean that hawai’i would not have accepted African, it means african would have been put into the negro pile in their graphs and flow charts.

    Interesting document though. I have it saved for further reading.

  84. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 7:05 pm #

    Joey: From the November 1, 2008 update of the factcheck.org article “Born in the USA:”
    “Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn’t tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama’s father’s race listed as “African”? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as “African.” It’s certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.”

    On last year’s census form, under race, my wife put down, for all the members of our family “Human”. While this is not normally considered a racial category, we never heard back from the Census Bureau, so I assume the racila breakdown for our tract will show at least 3 humans.

  85. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 7:08 pm #

    charo: Race and color
    Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
    vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese,
    Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
    (combined), and “other nonwhite.”
    The category “white” includes, in addition to persons

    You are confusing child’s race with parents’ race, and it makes big difference. Child race is not even on the hospital birth form; it’s determined by staff based on a set of rules into the categories you listed from information on how the parents describe themselves.

  86. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 7:13 pm #

    charo: Joey,

    It wasn’t issue in 2007.Wake up.

    How do you know what was an issue in Obama’s mind in 2007? Folks with foreign sounding names have had to deal with people not accepting them as “real Americans” all their lives.
    In 2007, Obama was dealing with a Republican administration in Hawaii and Republican elected officials who were not enamoured of him running as a “native son.”
    Those factors could add up to “testy.”

  87. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 7:15 pm #

    DP: She’s never actually examined the hard copy, moron. What she has said repeatedly is that it looks like the kind of certificates Hawaii issues and she’s checked the information on file from which it derives. That’s enough for sane people.

    Her statements only seem carefully crafted to a nut like you because poor Ms. Fukino, like most of us, is not in the habit of filtering her words to imagine how they would come across to irrational lunatics.

    The race issue has been covered by others as well. It was not legally required to say Negro, Obama’s father was African, and they have a habit of referring to themselves as Africans or Kenyans (in this case), not Negroes. That you fail to realize something so elementary is testament your own ethnocentric racial blinders, nothing else.

    You lost ground as soon as you said “moron” and said something moronic. The interview said that she examined the copy twice. I may rethink my position as soon as you can explain this lie:

    Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. I am free to speculate as to the reason for the lie, which it appears to be at this point. Concerning the race issue, it doesn’t matter what term he wanted to use; vital statistics used only the codes listed. As for your racism comment: Have you worked in an African American community and given of yourself? Do you have African Americans in your home daily? I can answer in the affirmative on both counts.

  88. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 7:18 pm #

    Scientist: On last year’s census form, under race, my wife put down, for all the members of our family “Human”.While this is not normally considered a racial category, we never heard back from the Census Bureau, so I assume the racila breakdown for our tract will show at least 3 humans.

    Your family’s data will be recorded in the “some other race” category.

  89. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 7:19 pm #

    Joey: How do you know what was an issue in Obama’s mind in 2007? Folks withforeign sounding names have had to deal with people not accepting them as“real Americans” all their lives.
    In 2007, Obama was dealing with a Republican administration in Hawaii and Republican elected officials who were not enamoured of him running as a “native son.”
    Those factors could add up to “testy.”

    Sorry for being short with you Joey because your answer was civil and mine was not, but your reasoning is quite weak in the context of how the statement was made.

  90. avatar
    nc1 April 10, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

    Joey: Here’s a link to the statute.
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM

    It is obvious that the previous Attorney General, Mark Bennett’s interpretation and the new Attorney General, David Louie’s interpretation is that “certified copy” in the law refers to a Certification of Live Birth, not an original long form, vault copy birth certificate.
    However a court or a congressional committee could issue a subpoena for the original document and the Attorney General’s office in Hawaii would have to figure out how they would respond to such a court order.
    My money would be on a sworn deposition from the Registrar of Vital Records or the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health as to the information on an original birth record would suffice for any judge or congressional committee.

    The quoted law does not prevent the release of documents to the registrant. Therefore, Obama could request and the DoH would have to release the copy of the original to him.

    The following statement from the Isikoff article is a lie:
    “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.”

    To summarize: The NBC article claims that Obama’s birth certificate contains doctor’s signature but the document is half typed – half handwritten.
    It also claims that original document cannot be released even to the registrant (no such state law exists) and Obama campaign was concerned about responding to an issue that was non-existent in June 2007.

  91. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 7:24 pm #

    Simplest answer, He was used to being called unAmerican so he got his BC to but the issue to bed if it came up.

    And like I’ve always said, its irrelevant precisely when it was issued, the only thing that matters is that it was ordered before it was published. That puts the matter into reasonable presumption it is genuine

  92. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: You are confusing child’s race with parents’ race, and it makes big difference. Child race is not even on the hospital birth form; it’s determined by staff based on a set of rules into the categories you listed from information on how the parents describe themselves.

    Do you have evidence that FactCheck’s answer about parents calling themselves by whatever race they choose was the practice in 1961? I know that is the case as of the late 80′s and onward because when my students had to fill out their race for testing, they chose their race (some were bi-racial).

  93. avatar
    Joey April 10, 2011 at 7:26 pm #

    charo: Sorry for being short with you Joey because your answer was civil and mine was not, but your reasoning is quite weak in the context of how the statement was made.

    You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. As I said, I’m just speculating (weak or not) on why Obama was “testy.”
    Perhaps someday, the Republicans in the House of Representatives will get around to holding hearings on Obama’s eligibility and subpoena former Governor Lingle, Director Fukino, Registrar Onaka, and Spokesperson Okubo to testify under oath.

  94. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 7:27 pm #

    nc1: It also claims that original document cannot be released even to the registrant (no such state law exists) and Obama campaign was concerned about responding to an issue that was non-existent in June 2007.

    Which means that your whining about you “just wanting the original birth cert” is a load of fertilizer and you always knew it. Its an impossibility, no-one can get one.

    And the guy just ordered a copy of his BC to shut people up, same as Eisenhower, a Republican, did for his run for the presidency.

  95. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 7:28 pm #

    Suranis: Simplest answer, He was used to being called unAmerican so he got his BC to but the issue to bed if it came up.

    I respect your opinion Doc. Are you buying this angle?

  96. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 7:30 pm #

    charo: Do you have evidence that FactCheck’s answer about parents calling themselves by whatever race they choose was the practice in 1961?I know that is the case as of the late 80′s and onward because when my students had to fill out their race for testing, they chose their race (some were bi-racial).

    Maybe you should write to factcheck and ask them for their evidence rather than get Doc C to do your work for you and defend the work of everyone else?

    You are the accuser, the burden of proof is on you.

  97. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    Joey: You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. As I said, I’m just speculating (weak or not) on why Obama was “testy.”
    Perhaps someday, the Republicans in the House of Representatives will get around to holding hearings on Obama’s eligibility and subpoena former Governor Lingle, Director Fukino, Registrar Onaka, and Spokesperson Okubo to testify under oath.

    Now would be a fantastic time for Obama to release the long form. Do you really have a doubt he would be denied? For crying out loud, what is it going to hurt?

  98. avatar
    DP April 10, 2011 at 7:31 pm #

    charo:

    Fukino referred to examining to the original data on file twice, not the Internet COLB to which I was referring. It’s a pretty clear distinction to anyone who can actually read English sentences. Being able to carry two thoughts at once helps, too.

    As others have explained, you also misuderstand the vital statistics information you are cutting and pasting, the same as the original people who cut and pasted it did.

    Oh, and you have African-American friends, too. How special. Never heard that one before.

  99. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 7:32 pm #

    Suranis: Maybe you should write to factcheck and ask them for their evidence rather than get Doc C to do your work for you and defend the work of everyone else?

    You are the accuser, the burden of proof is on you.

    Doc doesn’t mind answering reasonable questions. I gave my proof. It has not been refuted by documents.

  100. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    Also, I provided Doc with a link last year that Kenyans should refer to themselves as Africans. Right here, on this website. Whether that has to be accepted by Vital Statictics is another matter.

  101. avatar
    Keith April 10, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    Slartibartfast: What do you have against Gary Busey and Meatloaf?

    Hot patootie! Bless my soul! I really love that Rock ‘n Roll!

  102. avatar
    Sef April 10, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    DP: Oh, and you have African-American friends, too. How special. Never heard that one before.

    And we all have African ancestors.

  103. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

    DP: Oh, and you have African-American friends, too. How special. Never heard that one before.

    Your comment called for my response.

    DP: Fukino referred to examining to the original data on file twice, not the Internet COLB to which I was referring.

    I guess I was surprise that you were supporting my point.

  104. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 7:39 pm #

    nc1: The following statement from the Isikoff article is a lie:
    “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.”

    So you honestly believe you know the laws of Hawaii better than the Attorney General of the state? Please list your professional qualifications in this area.

    charo: Do you have evidence that FactCheck’s answer about parents calling themselves by whatever race they choose was the practice in 1961?

    The entire concept of “races” is not well established by genetics. There is far more in the way of genetic differences between individuals within a given “race” than there is between the “races”. It’s a complex subject, but the summary here covers the main points
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human#Race_and_ethnicity

    My wife was not just being difficult when she said on the census form that we were “human”, she was being quite accurate in the scientific sense.

    You, charo, are most assuredly barking up the wrong tree. You really ought to stick to your areas of expertise (say archaic Catholic doctrines) and not venture into the very complex field of human genetics.

  105. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 7:40 pm #

    charo: Now would be a fantastic time for Obama to release the long form. Do you really have a doubt he would be denied? For crying out loud, what is it going to hurt?

    HE CAN’T GET IT. Can you read? If so, did you read what the Attorney General’s spokesman said? If not, why are you here?

  106. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 7:40 pm #

    Charo, do you think nurses would just accept the answer that parents gave them, or would they argue with them?
    “Race, Sir?”
    “Asian”
    “I don’t know sir, you look more Indian to me. Are you sure?”

    How often do you think they wanted to argue with people, in a state with a rich multi-cultural heritage even back then?

    And don’t let the birthers frame the argument now as being about why Obama was “testy” in 2007. We may never know why, and it doesn’t matter. The point is, this new info is devastating to birtherism, and anyone left arguing birther nonsense at this point is likely mentally Ill.

  107. avatar
    Mary Brown April 10, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    Why was he testy? For the same reason I was when my husband asked me to sign a document- a necessary document. No, it wasn’t our income tax. My thoughts were “this is silly” but I did it anyway. It is human nature Charo. The problem is that there is nothing, nothing Obama can do to put this to sleep. There wll always be some angle, some reason, some statement. But really, she said she saw the original document, it was signed by the doctor, and was on file. When asked for my race on a county document I put human. It was’t one of the options I just wrote it in. It wasn’t questioned. I could go on but then I realize this is all useless where you people are concerned. Have you ever heard of the flat earth society? You all resemble the members of that group.

  108. avatar
    DP April 10, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    charo: Your comment called for my response. I guess I was surprise that you were supporting my point.

    I’m not supporting your point. At this point you’re simply admitting that you can’t actually read a sequence of sentences and compile the information correctly.

  109. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 7:51 pm #

    The birthers are absolutely frothing all over the Internet since this killed birtherism dead. They are trying desperately to find anything to change the subject to, and all they have now are these three things:
    1. “testy”
    2. Dr. Fukino is no longer in charge and she is lying and they are all in on it.
    3. Vattel

    All three points are crap and they are furious that birtherism has suffered such a cropping blow.

  110. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 7:53 pm #

    Mary Brown:
    Why was he testy? For the same reason I was when my husband asked me to sign a document- a necessary document.No, it wasn’t our income tax.My thoughts were “this is silly” but I did it anyway.It is human nature Charo.The problem is that there is nothing, nothing Obama can do to put this to sleep. There wll always be some angle, some reason, some statement.But really, she said she saw the original document, it was signed by the doctor, and was on file.When asked for my race on a county document I put human.It was’t one of the options I just wrote it in.It wasn’t questioned.I could go on but then I realize this is all useless where you people are concerned.Have you ever heard of the flat earth society?You all resemble the members of that group.

    Mary,

    Citizenship was not at issue for Obama in 2007 and as Doc said, the campaign did not state that was the reason for obtaining the COLB then.

  111. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 8:01 pm #

    As far as “testy” we have only the opinion of an unnamed campaign official. Maybe Obama wasn’t really testy. Maybe he was testy about something totally unrelated. Who knows? Who cares? What a pathetic, miserable life one would have to lead to attach the slightest significance to this.

  112. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    “Citizenship was not at issue for Obama in 2007 and as Doc said, the campaign did not state that was the reason for obtaining the COLB then.”
    at the time I remember it was done to prove his middle name was not “Mohammud”. Not sure of it being true, but that was as issue.

  113. avatar
    gorefan April 10, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    charo: There is no African listing, even if Stanley Ann wanted to use that race indicator.

    How do you know she even saw a list to chose from? If she was given a blank bc, like the Nordyke’s, it only says “Race of Father”, there are no options.

  114. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    DP: I’m not supporting your point. At this point you’re simply admitting that you can’t actually read a sequence of sentences and compile the information correctly.

    She’s never actually examined the hard copy, moron. (DP)

    Fukino referred to examining to the original data on file twice, not the Internet COLB to which I was referring.

    ***

    I suppose I do have trouble with that kind of sequencing of thoughts. I assumed hard copy was the original which you said she did not examine. And here is what I said:

    Fukino never confirmed the COLB by FactCheck.

  115. avatar
    Mary Brown April 10, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    Charo, You fail to get my point. Sometimes we get “testy” for nothing. As I did. It doesn’t matter whether the year was 2007 or 2008. How was “testy” expressed. Good grief, Charo. I remember the first line of a poem, “Terrence this is stupid stuff.”

  116. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    Does Obama being testy somehow cancel out all of Dr. Fukino’s words?
    Even when she is not the one who described him as testy?
    Nope. Move along.

  117. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 10, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    This is the greatest gift ever. The only people who can continue to deny the existence are the pathologically conspiracy minded and the people who have a vested interest in it not being true.

  118. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    “There is no African listing, even if Stanley Ann wanted to use that race indicator”
    .
    Fact One: on Hawaiian BC’s you will find, Japanese, Chinese, African, Polish, etc. That’s a fact.
    Fact Two: I knew the African students at University of Hawaii in the 60′s, not a one would use Negro, their answer on race was always “African”. Remember they did not use American Terms!

  119. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:07 pm #

    gorefan: How do you know she even saw a list to chose from?If she was given a blank bc, like the Nordyke’s, it only says “Race of Father”, there are no options.

    She may not have. Vital Statistics would take the information and compile it according to their procedures. Because of the statement of the campaign staffer which conflicts with a previous statement and makes little sense, this kind of unresolved issue has become suspect for me, not the birthplace, which so far supported by the State Department documents.

  120. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 8:07 pm #

    Dr. Fukino testified under oath that Obama placed a Hawaiian COLB on his campaign web site.

  121. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:10 pm #

    richCares:
    “There is no African listing, even if Stanley Ann wanted to use that race indicator”
    .
    Fact One: on Hawaiian BC’s you will find, Japanese, Chinese, African, Polish, etc. That’s a fact.
    Fact Two: I knew the African students at University of Hawaii in the 60′s, not a one would use Negro, their answer on race was always “African”.Remember they did not use American Terms!

    I believe that is the case now (African listed). As for the 1960′s, I am not doubting what race people referred to themselves as. It is what Vital Statistics does with the the information that matters. Codes…

  122. avatar
    Keith April 10, 2011 at 8:12 pm #

    charo: Race and color
    Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for
    vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese,
    Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian
    (combined), and “other nonwhite.”
    The category “white” includes, in addition to persons

    http://www.nber.org/vital-statistics/historical/nat61_1.CV.pdf

    There is no African listing, even if Stanley Ann wanted to use that race indicator.

    The word ‘African’ is used to describe the baby’s father, Obama Sr. and is provided by the father (or mother), not by the staff.

    The accepted racial/ethnic categories you list are for the newborn, not the parents. Obama’s COLB does not list the category that he was ‘assigned’, whatever that may be.

  123. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:13 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Dr. Fukino testified under oath that Obama placed a Hawaiian COLB on his campaign web site.

    That is still not affirming that it came from her office. And if that is what she meant, her office called whether a receipt existed for the transaction “private.” Existence of a receipt private but blabbing all other information is not.

  124. avatar
    Sean April 10, 2011 at 8:17 pm #

    I wonder if it would be a breach of HIPAA if Fukino stated that Obama was born in a hospital (not a specific one) just a hospital.

  125. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:18 pm #

    Keith: The word African’ is used to describe the baby’s father, Obama Sr. and is provided by the father (or mother), not by the staff.

    The accepted racial/ethnic categories you list are for the newborn, not the parents. Obama’s COLB does not list the category that he was assigned’, whatever that may be.

    That is a logical argument, Keith, one that I considered. It also occurred to me that since Vital Statistics used those categories of race for the child, it would also be done for the parents for uniformity. The whole matter is suspect when there is a statement that Obama wanted to put the issue to rest when there was no issue about his citizenship in 2007 and the campaign never gave that as a reason at the time.

  126. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 8:20 pm #

    charo: Obsolete:
    Dr. Fukino testified under oath that Obama placed a Hawaiian COLB on his campaign web site.
    That is still not affirming that it came from her office.

    Where else would it come from? Fukino said the iinformation on the COLB matches the records on file. Is your story that the campaign forged a COLB that says EXACTLY what a real COLB from Hawaii wouuld say? Is that honestly what you are reduced to?

  127. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 8:24 pm #

    “Is that honestly what you are reduced to”
    .
    now that is really funny!

  128. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 8:28 pm #

    “no issue about his citizenship in 2007 ”
    there was an issue on McCain’s citizenship, if I were Obama I would paly it safe!

  129. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    charo: The whole matter is suspect when there is a statement that Obama wanted to put the issue to rest when there was no issue about his citizenship in 2007 and the campaign never gave that as a reason at the time

    Where are you getting that statement? Here is what is in the article:

    “The document was distributed to the Obama campaign in 2007 after Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity”

    There is no statement regarding why the birth certificate was ordered, even though it seems a perfectly reasonable thing for a campaign to do. Have you ever worked on a Presidential campaign? It seems quite reasonable that assembling documents like birth certifcates, tax returns, financial records, etc. would be standard practice.

    According to you, ordering a birth certificate is supicious. Also, not ordering a birth certificate is suspicious. Is this honestly what you are reduced to?

  130. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:30 pm #

    What would happen to her if she said directly, the copy of the COLB came from my office. Would Obama sue her, have the AG bring charges? She won’t say it is from her office. And she never said all of the information matched what was in the records. She said that he has a valid certificate in the basement (or wherever) and what is on the intebrnet is the kind of COLB people get.

    A record that a request was made on or about that date was denied. That’s so private.

  131. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 8:31 pm #

    Charo:
    “The whole matter is suspect when there is a statement that Obama wanted to put the issue to rest when there was no issue about his citizenship in 2007 and the campaign never gave that as a reason at the time.”

    “The whole matter is suspect”

    Really? Don’t you think you are attaching too much importance to an unnamed staffer’s comments, while ignoring the meat of the matter?
    Again, explain how an unnamed Obama staffer’s comments undermine anything attested to by the official Hawaiian records keeper?
    You must realize how silly this looks to the average rational person who does not have an emotional investment in getting rid of the scary man in the White House.

  132. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:35 pm #

    Someone please point out to scientist this comment from the article:

    (Obama was “testy” when asked to sign the form but did so anyway to put the issue to rest, the former campaign official said. The White House has dismissed all questions about the president’s birth as “fictional nonsense

    [his citizenship was not at issue in 2007)

    He doesn’t seem to believe me.

  133. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 8:36 pm #

    Charo:
    “What would happen to her if she said directly, the copy of the COLB came from my office.”

    It’s obvious you never read her sworn testimony. You should do so.

    And again, she said that the Obama campaign placed his Hawaiian COLB on his campaign site. Where else would a Hawaiian COLB come from? Did she really have to say it? Is this honestly what you are reduced to? ;)

  134. avatar
    gorefan April 10, 2011 at 8:36 pm #

    charo: Because of the statement of the campaign staffer which conflicts with a previous statement and makes little sense,

    What was the previous statement that was conflicting?

  135. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    “Is this honestly what you are reduced to?”
    your answer to charo’s babbling was funny,thanks for the humor!

  136. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:38 pm #

    Don’t you think you are attaching too much importance to an unnamed staffer’s comments,

    It was such an insignificant comment???

    Gotta go. Scientist just scares me so much that I have to run off. Isn’t that what I do? High tail it out? Pray to my statues?

    lol

  137. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 10, 2011 at 8:40 pm #

    Obsolete: all they have now are these three things:
    1. “testy”

    I think “testy” probably comes into the story merely as the explanation as to why the now-anonymous campaign official has a clear recollection of the sequence of events in 2007, as part of the answer to “how can you remember the detail sof something that happened 4 years ago?”

  138. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:41 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Charo:
    “What would happen to her if she said directly, the copy of the COLB came from my office.”

    It’s obvious you never read her sworn testimony. You should do so.

    And again, she said that the Obama campaign placed his Hawaiian COLB on his campaign site. Where else would a Hawaiian COLB come from? Did she really have to say it? Is this honestly what you are reduced to?

    Then there is no reason to deny people an answer as to whether someone requested a COLB because that is so private that she testified about it. I say she hedged, but hey, if she didn’t, how is whether someone requested the COLB private?

    Gotta go for sure…

  139. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    It is insignificant AND unrelated to what Dr. Fukino said.

    ( which utterly destroyed the last remaining hopes the birthers had of seeing the scary dark man frog-marched out of “their” White House. )

  140. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

    charo: Fukino never confirmed the COLB by FactCheck.

    She con firmed the one released by the obama campaign was “a valid hawai’in Birth certificate” and the one she had was just like it. And you know that which is why you are splitting hairs on the factcheck BC

    Fact; the Factcheck BC was the same one scanned by the Obama campaign.

    Fact; Dr Fukino had and has better things to do than personally confirm every single picture on the internet just to try and satisfy stupid lunatics that would never ever be satisfied no matter what she said.

  141. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 8:45 pm #

    charo: Then there is no reason to deny people an answer as to whether someone requested a COLB because that is so private that she testified about it.

    She confirmed someone had requested the BC but could not say who due to hawai’in privacy laws. See politifact.

    Again splitting hairs as “just giving you what you want” would require people breaking laws to give you, so you can never be satisfied. And even if they did you would invent something new to complain about.

  142. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    Charo,

    The thread you are clinging to right now is really sad. Do you truly believe that you have discovered the key piece of evidence to uncover a conspiracy of epic proportions? Is it not infinitely more likely that you’ve discovered evidence that someone misspoke (as people occasionally do) or conflated two events in regard to an issue that they are unlikely to view dispassionately? How would you react to, say, Lame Cherry’s racist bile if it were directed at you? (I’m guessing that it wouldn’t make you feel all warm inside…). Really, the mental gymnastics required to simultaneously parse all of the statements by Dr. Fukino, et al. while denying that President Obama’s birth certificate is on file with the DOH and legit has got to be beyond the ability of even a birther’s confirmation bias to rationalize, doesn’t it?

  143. avatar
    katahdin April 10, 2011 at 8:49 pm #

    Mary Brown: Terrence this is stupid stuff

    http://www.bartleby.com/123/62.html

  144. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    Suranis: She con firmed the one released by the obama campaign was “a valid hawai’in Birth certificate” and the one she had was just like it. And you know that which is why you are splitting hairs on the factcheck BC

    Fact; the Factcheck BC was the same one scanned by the Obama campaign.

    Fact; Dr Fukino had and has better things to do than personally confirm every single picture on the internet just to try and satisfy stupid lunatics that would never ever be satisfied no matter what she said.

    The UIPA has a process that has to be followed. It’s an open records law. The question was answered “private.” A person is not obligated to follow events to find the answer oneself. If the answer is available and is not private, it must be handed over. Check with Jo Zeepy or Greg as to how the UIPA process works.

    I am in trouble now that I kept going here…

  145. avatar
    Majority Will April 10, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    “That is still not affirming that it came from her office.”

    The state of Illinois was running a special on Hawaiian COLBs and time and campaign funds were tight so . . .

    :shock:

  146. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 8:53 pm #

    charo: He doesn’t seem to believe me.

    I have that reaction to insane people. Your cherished story has been demolished. You have nothing left of your dream. rather than accept that you clutch at straws that break in the wind. Reading deep meaning into every word said by an “unnamed official” (none of the words are actually attributed to Obama). Reading deep meaning into whether someone is African or Negro, I’m sure coming next will be numerology on the date of birth. Add the digiits in 8/4/61 and you get 19, which is a prime number. Is that honestly what you are reduced to?

    As an agnostic, I probably shouldn’t quote the Bible at you, but the verse, “Jesus wept” undoubtedly referred to his anticipation of birthers.

  147. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:02 pm #

    Scientist: I have that reaction to insane people.Your cherished story has been demolished.You have nothing left of your dream.rather than accept that you clutch at straws that break in the wind.Reading deep meaning into every word said by an “unnamed official” (none of the words are actually attributed to Obama).Reading deep meaning into whether someone is African or Negro,I’m sure coming next will be numerology on the date of birth.Add the digiits in 8/4/61 and you get 19, which is a prime number.Is that honestly what you are reduced to?

    As an agnostic, I probably shouldn’t quote the Bible at you, but the verse, “Jesus wept” undoubtedly referred to his anticipation of birthers.

    I cam back just for you. Demolished? You didn’t even get the complete quote from the article. At least the others addressed it.

    “Reading deep meaning into whether someone is African or Negro, …”

    What a slimy “human” you are (I even used your preferred race).

  148. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm #

    Suranis: She confirmed someone had requested the BC but could not say who due to hawai’in privacy laws. See politifact.

    I am always impressed by an indirect comment with no link.

  149. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 9:03 pm #

    it appears that handling truth is not a birther strong point!

  150. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    Majority Will:
    “That is still not affirming that it came from her office.”

    The state of Illinois was running a special on Hawaiian COLBs and time and campaign funds were tight so . . .

    Straight to the Donald’s ear… (kids want to play some more so I am too)

  151. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 9:08 pm #

    Lil' Red: You should note that I said nothing about a certified long-form

    You should note that I said nothing about you saying anything about a certified long-form.

  152. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    richCares:
    it appears that handling truth is not a birther strong point!

    1 A staffer “misspeaks”- it was the OTHER time a COLB was ordered in 2007-

    2. 1961 used codes for races; now we don’t-

    3. receipts are private but all of the information on a birth certificate is not- nothing to see here

    I was demolished!

  153. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 9:09 pm #

    charo: Don’t you think you are attaching too much importance to an unnamed staffer’s comments,

    I don’t attach any importance whatever to them.

  154. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 9:11 pm #

    charo: Demolished?

    Your birther dreams are dead, they are demised, they have rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible, they are deceased, they have gone to meet their maker, they have shuffled off this mortal coil, they are pushing up the daisies, they are no more.

    I am sure you will tell us they are “just resting” though..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

  155. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 9:14 pm #

    charo: 2. 1961 used codes for races; now we don’t-

    No, they didn’t use race codes for PARENTS in 1961.

  156. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    Doc, it seems that Charo is emotionally vested in NOT understanding what you are saying…

  157. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    She already answered. In public. Under oath.

    How many confirmations of things already confirmed is reasonable?

  158. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:23 pm #

    Scientist: Your birther dreams are dead, they are demised, they have rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible, they are deceased, they have gone to meet their maker, they have shuffled off this mortal coil, they are pushing up the daisies, they are no more.

    I am sure you will tell us they are “just resting” though..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

    There goes all of my purpose in life… those statues just didn’t come through…

  159. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:25 pm #

    Obsolete:
    She already answered. In public. Under oath.

    How many confirmations of things already confirmed is reasonable?

    That is not an answer to a UIPA request. That is not how it is done.

  160. avatar
    Keith April 10, 2011 at 9:25 pm #

    charo: The whole matter is suspect when there is a statement that Obama wanted to put the issue to rest when there was no issue about his citizenship in 2007 and the campaign never gave that as a reason at the time.

    Correct. The reason for publishing the BC in the first place was to show people that his middle name was ‘Hussein’, not ‘Mohammad’. A stupid rumor that, it was thought, could be simply ‘put to rest’ by showing the BC. Funny how well that worked out, and you really think somehow getting Hawai’i to break it’s own state law is going to improve anything?.

    My theory on why he ordered the birth certificate in 2007 was because he and/or his campaign knew that if he won the nomination the Democratic Party was going to have to issue sworn affidavits to all states (or many of them anyway) confirming his eligibility. No party official should be put in the position of perjuring themselves, so they made sure they had the evidence. It is exactly the kind of fore-planning that the campaign staff is paid to do.

    Either Obama didn’t have a copy from earlier in his life, or his copy was tattered or damaged in such a way that he thought it would be best to obtain a new copy, or he simply wanted to leave a copy on file with the campaign while he kept his personal copy.

  161. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: No, they didn’t use race codes for PARENTS in 1961.

    I don’t mean as in coding the birth certificate, but when the form was filled out, do you think the sensibilities of the individual were taken into account in 1961? If the mother said my husband is African, would the nurse write that classification down or put what she was used to putting? Or if the application was filled out by the patient herself, would the final certificate be written with the exact words used?

    I am thinking 1961.

  162. avatar
    Suranis April 10, 2011 at 9:31 pm #

    Obsolete:
    She already answered. In public. Under oath.

    How many confirmations of things already confirmed is reasonable?

    N+1, apparently.

  163. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 9:34 pm #

    Charo, you still have your answer, even if she didn’t use your magical words in your magical forum.

  164. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

    No one has put forth this yet, but it is possible the AUTHOR twisted what was said for his purpose of writing the article. It could be that the staffer said he wanted to put the Muslim issue to rest and the author used “putting the issue to rest” with the birther issue because it fit in better.

  165. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:36 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Charo, you still have your answer, even if she didn’t use your magical words in your magical forum.

    You have no idea what the UIPA is, do you?

  166. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 9:37 pm #

    You have no idea what reality is, do you?

  167. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 9:39 pm #

    No, they didn’t use race codes for PARENTS in 1961.
    here is a link to a long form that lists father’s race as “Hawaiian, Chinese, Korean, English, Portugese” MY daughter’s shows mother as “Japanese”, Father as “Polish” races?
    .
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1646821495774&set=a.1086340484099.2013840.1394022018&theater#!/photo.php?fbid=1648483537324&set=a.1086340484099.2013840.1394022018&theater&pid=31365835&id=1394022018

  168. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:41 pm #

    I have a comment in moderation. A word must be triggering it. I’ll try again.

    The author could have manipulated what the staffer said to fit his article. Maybe the staffer said he wanted to put the Musl*m issue to rest but that was left out and the comment was put into a different context.

  169. avatar
    charo April 10, 2011 at 9:42 pm #

    I’m not on Facebook so I can’t log in.

  170. avatar
    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 9:45 pm #

    charo: You have no idea what the UIPA is, do you?

    Dr Fukino is far more familiar with it than you are. If she had a question, she got adviice from the Attorney General. What legal authority backs your interpretation? The courts have backed the State of Hawaii’s interpretation. Doc just wrote about a very recent decision http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/04/hawaii-court-rejects-latest-birther-appeal/

    You seem to feel you know more about law than lawyers, more about science than scientists, more about history than historians, more about every field of human endeavor than those who spend their lives training and practicising in those fields. All, hail, charo!!

  171. avatar
    Obsolete April 10, 2011 at 9:52 pm #

    Well, we are falling for Charo’s birther tactic of getting us to ignore the substance of how birtherism was demolished today and trying to make us focus on pointless & unrelated minutia.

  172. avatar
    gorefan April 10, 2011 at 9:55 pm #

    charo: I am thinking 1961.

    Didn’t Alan Booths 1981 long form bc say his mother (Miki Booth) was Caucasian/Japanese? and father was Caucasian/Hawaiian?

    But his short form say that his mother was Japanese and father was Hawaiian?

  173. avatar
    katahdin April 10, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    charo: I don’t mean as in coding the birth certificate, but when the form was filled out, do you think the sensibilities of the individual were taken into account in 1961?If the mother said my husband is African, would the nurse write that classification down or put what she was used to putting?Or if the application was filled out by the patient herself, would the final certificate be written with the exact words used?

    I am thinking 1961.

    Do you think it’s just possible that, since Stanley Ann was in labor and likely under sedation (they did that back then), that Barack Sr. filled out the paperwork and listed his race as African? Of course it’s not provable after so many years, but it makes intuitive and rational sense.

  174. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 10:07 pm #

    Obsolete: Well, we are falling for Charo’s birther tactic of getting us to ignore the substance of how birtherism was demolished today and trying to make us focus on pointless & unrelated minutia.

    That’s a difference between the discussion here and that between normal people. In the normal world people don’t think that others talk in code, or focus on what someone didn’t say while ignoring what they did say.

  175. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 10:17 pm #

    I must say that this article “made my day.” In the grand scheme of things, it means absolutely nothing since it only adds confirmation to something already well-known. Nevertheless, it forces birthers further into the fringe, which is where they belonged from the beginning.

    It’s sort of an epiphany for me, the realization that birther arguments have become so absurd on the face of it, that they don’t require refutation.

  176. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    charo: If the mother said my husband is African, would the nurse write that classification down or put what she was used to putting?

    Professionals don’t make up stuff. For your view to make any sense you basically have to claim that every nurse must have ignored their training, and that it was highly implausible for anyone to accurately record what the parent reported. That’s silly.

  177. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 10, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    I must say that this article “made my day.” In the grand scheme of things, it means absolutely nothing since it only adds confirmation to something already well-known.Nevertheless, it forces birthers further into the fringe, which is where they belonged from the beginning.

    It’s sort of an epiphany for me, the realization that birther arguments have becomeso absurd on the face of it, that they don’t require refutation.

    Right there with you Doc – this thread has been a lot more enjoyable and I think that you put your finger on the reason.

    Charo,

    Face it, the point you are trying to argue is of no significance whatsoever – don’t you have better things to do?

  178. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 10:25 pm #

    katahdin: Do you think it’s just possible that, since Stanley Ann was in labor and likely under sedation (they did that back then), that Barack Sr. filled out the paperwork and listed his race as African? Of course it’s not provable after so many years, but it makes intuitive and rational sense.

    That’s possible but speaking generally, the vast majority of forms are filled out by the mother after the baby is born.

  179. avatar
    MichaelN April 10, 2011 at 10:32 pm #

    Sef:
    This quote from the article is also quite important”

    “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago. ”

    If it’s on file in the department, then is ‘SHALL’ be furnished.

    Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office is full of crap.

    Furthermore a certified image copy or a copy of ALL the contents is ALL that is acceptable as ‘for all purposes the same as the original’.

    A COLB is a ‘part thereof’ and thus excluded from being considered for all purposes the same as the original/

    HRS 338-13
    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

    (b) Copies of the contents of ANYcertificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

  180. avatar
    gorefan April 10, 2011 at 10:41 pm #

    Dr. C. – is Mr. Wisch’s point that if you want the original vital record, you can not have it. It has to stay in the DOH. You can come look at it but that’s all. But he is not saying that if you want a copy of it, they will not get you one?

  181. avatar
    richCares April 10, 2011 at 10:42 pm #

    “or any part thereof.”
    COLB?

  182. avatar
    Northland10 April 10, 2011 at 10:45 pm #

    It has been an interesting week. First Rush tosses the birthers under the bus and then the Republican appointed former Hawaiian Official, no longer constrained by the necessary bureaucratic table manners, drops another bomb (at least to the birthers, since for rational folk, it was a duh). Is this the republican bash on birthers week?

  183. avatar
    gorefan April 10, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    MichaelN: A COLB is a part thereof’ and thus excluded from being considered for all purposes the same as the original/

    That’s not what the DOH spokeswoman Okubo told Politifact.com,

    “When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called “long” and “short” forms.

    “They’re just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.”

    “There’s only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it’s been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

    “When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That’s the birth certificate.” “

  184. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 10, 2011 at 11:05 pm #

    gorefan: Dr. C. – is Mr. Wisch’s point that if you want the original vital record, you can not have it. It has to stay in the DOH. You can come look at it but that’s all. But he is not saying that if you want a copy of it, they will not get you one?

    I think you have the first part right. He is saying that the Health Department never releases the original. But he also says in the interview: “Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied.” That would seem to be a direct contradiction of the statute.

    Chance and incompetence: the meat and potatoes of conspiracy theorists.

  185. avatar
    gorefan April 10, 2011 at 11:30 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: That would seem to be a direct contradiction of the statute.

    I would think I would feel more comfortable if that part had also been a direct quote.

  186. avatar
    GeorgetownJD April 10, 2011 at 11:38 pm #

    Suranis: DoH representative (Okubo) lied to AP writer Mark Niesse when she claimed that birth index for 1961 could be purchased from DoH for $98.75.

    A birther ordered it and you started bitching about lack of index numbers. Remember?

    Let’s summarize:

    A birther discovered the Health Statistics Bureau entries in the newspapers, announcing the birth.

    A birther ordered and obtained the birth index which includes a entry for the birth.

    A birther discovered that Obama Sr. attended the 1961 summer session at the University of Hawaii, with the final day of classes on August 4.

    A birther, obtained State Department records through a FOIA request containing a reference to Lolo Soetoro’s stepson, young Barack, indicating that its investigation showed the child was American-born.

    Pretty good track record, don’t you think?

  187. avatar
    Joey April 11, 2011 at 12:08 am #

    Northland10:
    It has been an interesting week.First Rush tosses the birthers under the bus and then the Republican appointed former Hawaiian Official, no longer constrained by the necessary bureaucratic table manners, drops another bomb (at least to the birthers, since for rational folk, it was a duh). Is this the republican bash on birthers week?

    My favorite Rush Limbaugh/Birther quote is “El Rushbo” comparing Barack Hussein Obama to Jesus of Nazareth!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NmcSowSfTk

  188. avatar
    Lucas D. Smith April 11, 2011 at 12:33 am #

    And what is the name of the attending doctor???

    I rest my case.

  189. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 11, 2011 at 12:38 am #

    Lucas D. Smith:
    And what is the name of the attending doctor???

    Why does it matter? (Answer: it doesn’t)

    I rest my case.

    Pretty sad case. Do you understand that the only way that your POSFKBC didn’t just depreciate is if it was worthless in the first place?

  190. avatar
    Howard D Doyle April 11, 2011 at 12:45 am #

    Lucas D. Smith:

    How many Congressmen have contacted you after you sent them your 8 X 10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was?

  191. avatar
    gorefan April 11, 2011 at 12:47 am #

    Lucas D. Smith: And what is the name of the attending doctor???

    One thing for sure it is not James Ang’awa.

    Case closed.

  192. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 11, 2011 at 12:58 am #

    MichaelN: [MichaelN's desperate attempt to grasp at straws deleted]

    Wow, you’re not even interesting enough for anyone to debunk you – that’s a new low for you, isn’t it? ;-)

  193. avatar
    Lucas D. Smith April 11, 2011 at 1:33 am #

    For the record I was referring the bulls–t report from earlier today about the “Former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, made this stunning revelation in an interview with NBC”

    What is so “stunning” about the “revelation”?

    Again, WHAT IS THE DOCTOR’S NAME?

    Do you get it know?

    There is no long form Hawaiian birth certificate for Obama. At best there is an affidavit of birth.

    I expected better from the people on Doc’s blog.

    You people are like little sheep that will believe anything that your owner tells you.

    Tell Dr. Chiyome Fukino to cough up the doctor’s name or shut the pie hole up.

    Again, I rest my case.

    PS. what’s next, Obama tells you that he’s got the birth certificate in his pocket but he can’t pull it to show you but he can assure that it’s a long form birth certificate with an attending doctor? Then you write a story about claiming that the rumors have now been squashed and that Obama really does have a long form Hawaiian bc???

  194. avatar
    Lucas D. Smith April 11, 2011 at 1:36 am #

    You people are like little children. Lol! I have lost all respect for the posters on this forum. I like university style debate but that is no longer possible here.

    Peace my little children. Lol!

  195. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 11, 2011 at 1:43 am #

    Lucas D. Smith:
    You people are like little children.Lol! I have lost all respect for the posters on this forum.I like university style debate but that is no longer possible here.

    Peace my little children.Lol!

    Sorry Mr. Smith, but real debate cannot happen unless both sides have merit – your side does not (as evinced by the birthers’ perfect court record…). While I’m sure that everyone here is all broken up that the’ve lost the respect of someone as credible as yourself, the fact is that you (and all of the other birhters) are the reason we can’t carry on the ‘university style debate’ that you would like.

  196. avatar
    Howard D Doyle April 11, 2011 at 2:14 am #

    Lucas D. Smith: You people are like little children. Lol! I have lost all respect for the posters on this forum. I like university style debate but that is no longer possible here.Peace my little children. Lol!

    Sorry…it’s hard to take someone serious when they publicly reveal their lust for Orly in the form of an ebay painting that looks like something Gauguin crapped on a canvas after swallowing a Picasso lithograph.

    and it’s probably a forgery!!

  197. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 2:23 am #

    Quote from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics

    “What he got, everybody got,” said Fukino. “He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.”

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorized such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer-generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.”

    But what about this?

    HDoH DOES issue ‘long form’ CertifiCATEs of Live Birth.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/

    Not true, Mr. Wisch. A friend of mine filled out the appropriate state form and received back a “certificate of live birth” as shown below:

    http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-form-BC-from-Hawaii-344×450.jpg

  198. avatar
    gorefan April 11, 2011 at 2:47 am #

    MichaelN: HDoH DOES issue long form’ CertifiCATEs of Live Birth.

    Why doesn’t it have a raised seal?

  199. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 2:50 am #

    gorefan: That’s not what the DOH spokeswoman Okubo told Politifact.com,

    “When we spoke to a spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, she said too much was being made of the difference between the so-called “long” and “short” forms.

    “They’re just words,” said spokeswoman Janice Okubo. “That (what was posted on the Internet) is considered a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii.”

    “There’s only one form of birth certificate,” she said, and it’s been the same since the 1980s. Birth certificates evolve over the decades, she said, and there are no doubt differences between the way birth certificates looked when Obama was born and now.

    “When you request a birth certificate, the one you get looks exactly like the one posted on his site,” she said. “That’s the birth certificate.” ”

    It’s what the HRS states that matters.

    i.e. a COLB is excluded from being ‘considered for all purposes the same as the original’

    Do you have a problem reading the statute?

    Here, I will dumb it down for you.

    HRS 338-13
    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health SHALL, upon request, furnish to any applicant a

    (A) certified copy of any certificate, [an image copy of the original held on file] or

    (B) the contents of any certificate, [ALL the contents, because the following is a part] or

    (C) any part thereof. [a COLB]

    (b) Copies of THE CONTENTS of ANY certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

    [it goes without saying that an image copy of the original is for all purposes the same as the original, so we have (b) stating that only a long form (ALL the contents) is considered for all purposes the same as the original, to the exclusion of a 'part thereof' i.e. a COLB]

    (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]

    Bottom line is that a COLB is not good enough and YES HDoH DOES issue ALL the contents (aka a ‘long form’) as is evidenced by the one Miki Booth has posted here.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/

    http://www.thepostemail.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Long-form-BC-from-Hawaii-344×450.jpg

  200. avatar
    gorefan April 11, 2011 at 2:59 am #

    HRS 338-13
    §338-13 Certified copies. [here they are telling you that the next section gives you the definition of a certified copy](a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health SHALL, upon request, furnish to any applicant a

    (A) certified copy of any certificate, [an image copy of the original held on file] or

    (B) the contents of any certificate, [ALL the contents, because the following is a part] or

    (C) any part thereof. [a COLB]

    [This part tells you what qualifies as a certified copy][The use of the word "or"tells you that any of these meets the definition of a certified copy]

    Oh, on those long form certificates, they look like they have an issue date of March 15, 2001.

  201. avatar
    dunstvangeet April 11, 2011 at 3:00 am #

    My guess, MichaelN, is two things…

    1: Either they are lying and manufacturing evidence (as is apparent on the so-called certified birth certificate – There is an image that was put up 2 days after the birth certificate was supposedly issued with absolutely no date on it, and no seal, and yet everything else is virtually the same. If that happened with Barack Obama’s, you’d all be screaming bloody murder.)

    2. Fukino is actually talking about a certified copy, which is what would be required for legal precedings. There is absolutely no process to legally obtain a certified copy of a long-form birth certificate. And before you point me to the manufactured one, there are some serious questions about it, including why the Post and Email published a copy of the birth certificate on March 17 without the signature and date-stamp, when the current one was supposedly issued 2 days before.

  202. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 3:03 am #

    gorefan: Why doesn’t it have a raised seal?

    I don’t know, maybe because it’s a .jpg copy posted on the internet, maybe Miki will be kind enough to take an angle shot.

    “(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.”

    Is there an official requirement for a raised seal?

    Not that I can find.

    “§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health. In addition, the forms of death certificates shall require the individual’s social security number. The form and use of the certificates shall be subject to sections 338-16 to 338-18. [L 1949, c 327, §15; RL 1955, §57-14; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-11; am L 1997, c 293, §17]“

  203. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 3:05 am #

    gorefan:
    HRS 338-13
    §338-13 Certified copies. [here they are telling you that the next section gives you the definition of a certified copy](a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health SHALL, upon request, furnish to any applicant a

    (A) certified copy of any certificate, [an image copy of the original held on file] or

    (B) the contents of any certificate, [ALL the contents, because the following is a part] or

    (C) any part thereof. [a COLB]

    [This part tells you what qualifies as a certified copy][The use of the word "or"tells you that any of these meets the definition of a certified copy]

    Oh, on those long form certificates, they look like they have an issue date of March 15, 2001.

    Of course they are all to be certified issues.

    So what?

  204. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 3:06 am #

    gorefan:
    HRS 338-13
    §338-13 Certified copies. [here they are telling you that the next section gives you the definition of a certified copy](a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health SHALL, upon request, furnish to any applicant a

    (A) certified copy of any certificate, [an image copy of the original held on file] or

    (B) the contents of any certificate, [ALL the contents, because the following is a part] or

    (C) any part thereof. [a COLB]

    [This part tells you what qualifies as a certified copy][The use of the word "or"tells you that any of these meets the definition of a certified copy]

    Oh, on those long form certificates, they look like they have an issue date of March 15, 2001.

    Take a closer look it is 2011

  205. avatar
    gorefan April 11, 2011 at 3:08 am #

    MichaelN: I don’t know, maybe because it’s a .jpg copy posted on the internet, maybe Miki will be kind enough to take an angle shot.

    Well, if you want to use it for anything other then a wallhanging such as to get a passport, yes it has to have a raised seal. It is one of those security devices. Like being printed on security paper, which is clear on this image.

  206. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 4:02 am #

    gorefan: Well, if you want to use it for anything other then a wallhanging such as to get a passport, yes it has to have a raised seal.

    Cite the statute of regulation that requires a raised seal.

    Here’s an article that discusses and shows the anomalies with Hawaiian ‘raised seals’.

    http://obamasgarden.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/unveiling-the-hdoh-seal/

    Compare this official copy of a raised seal provided by Hawaiian Dept of Health

    http://obamasgarden.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/embossedsealnoted1.jpg?w=490&h=440

    With this as shown on Obama’s alleged HDoH issued COLB

    http://obamasgarden.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/obamaclose1.jpg?w=659&h=486

  207. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 4:11 am #

    “§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health”

    and here is the ‘respective standard certificate as recommended’

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/United_States_long_form_birth_certificate.gif/461px-United_States_long_form_birth_certificate.gif

    Source

    The image is taken from a report entitled “The 1989 Revision of the U.S. Standard Certificates and Reports” (Series 4, No. 28), issued by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics. The entire report can be viewed in full at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_04/sr04_028.pdf, which is hosted by a U.S. federal government website.

    Author

    United States federal government

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_long_form_birth_certificate.gif

  208. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 4:12 am #

    “shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics,”

  209. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 4:18 am #

    dunstvangeet:
    My guess,
    . Fukino is actually talking about a certified copy, which is what would be required for legal precedings.There is absolutely no process to legally obtain a certified copy of a long-form birth certificate.And before you point me to the manufactured one, there are some serious questions about it, including why the Post and Email published a copy of the birth certificate on March 17 without the signature and date-stamp, when the current one was supposedly issued 2 days before.

    Of three ‘certified copies’, it is only the ‘contents’ which clearly means ALL the contents, that is considered for all purposes the same as the original.

    A certified ‘part thereof’ (aka a COLB) is excluded.

  210. avatar
    obsolete April 11, 2011 at 4:59 am #

    MichaelN & Lucas, that was quite a public cry you both just had. Feel better? I always did after a good cry and a nappy.

    MichaelN, why don’t you run for some public office in Hawaii? Why are you wasting your time elsewhere when you already know more about Hawaiian law and procedures more than Hawaiian Governors, Attorneys General, Judges, and DOH officials. Just think about how much they could learn from you!

  211. avatar
    Suranis April 11, 2011 at 6:09 am #

    I’d Just like to say the the birds are singing outside my window and I’m making Cinnamon rolls. Yummy.

  212. avatar
    roadburner April 11, 2011 at 6:48 am #

    Lucas D. Smith: You people are like little sheep that will believe anything that your owner tells you.

    I, roadburner, cannot help but find this somewhat amusing.

  213. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 11, 2011 at 7:22 am #

    Suranis: And the guy just ordered a copy of his BC to shut people up, same as Eisenhower, a Republican, did for his run for the presidency.

    Eisenhower never had his birth recorded. When he ran for the presidency, a birth certificate had to be made up out of scratch. Ike himself had always claimed he was born at Tyler, Texas but now suddenly, his mother remembered it was Denison, Texas – the place they moved to from Tyler. Ike’s brother, who had been 4 at the time, signed as a witness.

    Only, a few years ago, a document appeared showing Ike’s father bought a house in Tyler shortly after Ike’s birth. The question is of course: why did Ike’s father buy a house in a town that they had left? It seems obvious that the Eisenhowers lived in Denison for a very short time before going (back) to Kansas and Ike’s mother was simply mistaken.

    Although an argument has been made that it is actually the date that is wrong.

    http://www.whale.to/b/eisenhower1.html

    (the biography of Eisenhower that mentions the house being bought is on Google Books, I’ve quoted a few times already)

    Nothing to do with eligibility of course. The fact that Eisenhower was German by direct descent and no one ever got grandfathered in (because of the relevant German forefather of Ike being 71 when he fathered the next in Ike’s line) is more interesting for the birfer argument. Ike was “capable of acquiring foreign citizenship” (I am using Borderaven’s terminology on Obama here) from birth until he joined the US army.

  214. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 11, 2011 at 7:44 am #

    MichaelN: “§338-11 Form of certificates. The forms of certificates shall include as a minimum the items required by the respective standard certificates as recommended by the Public Health Service, National Center for Health Statistics, subject to approval of and modification by the department of health”

    This is a technical point. The Statute refers to the form on which a birth is registered, not the form of a certified copy. Now explain why the Nordyke certificate doesn’t match the standard you cited.

  215. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 11, 2011 at 7:52 am #

    Lucas D. Smith: You people are like little sheep that will believe anything that your owner tells you.

    I think some posters here have been well and fully owned or perhaps the better word is pwned. It does seem to have come down to a binary choice: Dr. Fukino is lying or you are.

  216. avatar
    Reality Check April 11, 2011 at 8:07 am #

    I downloaded the BC from the Mikki Booth article at the Pee and Eee and enhanced the contrast. The date looks much more like “2001″ than “2011″ to me. A higher res image would confirm this, of course. Also, why couldn’t Mikki Booth (or Terry Lakin for that matter) obtain a long form copy for her child? If this BC copy is from 2001 it may be one of the last obtained before the department switched to laser printed COLB’s exclusively. These birther’s are devious and desperate!

    http://i56.tinypic.com/vyv0qp.jpg

    I am trying to confirm that Alvin T. Onaka was the Registrar of Vital Statistics on that date in 2001. He has been with the department for 40 years so I am fairly sure he was. Maybe Doc C could confirm?

  217. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 11, 2011 at 8:19 am #

    MichaelN: Bottom line is that a COLB is not good enough and YES HDoH DOES issue ALL the contents (aka a long form’) as is evidenced by the one Miki Booth has posted here.

    When coming to a conclusion, it is necessary to do a reality check at the end, in case you made some mistakes in the deduction. If your conclusion is absurd, you made a mistake.

    The first implication of your conclusion is that all current Hawaiian certified copies are not valid birth certificates. That’s absurd. The second contradiction is the fact that even the Mimi certificate is not the whole certificate as specified by the US Standard certificate, but a photographically cropped subsection. This is more evident comparing the old Danae certificate with the new one (the newer one is cropped to show more). The fact that pretty much every certificate issued in the country has certain information omitted (e.g. number of other births of the mother), you are not only concluding that the COLB is invalid but every birth certificate.

    Next time, perhaps you should have Sherely the Frenchman check your work.

  218. avatar
    Majority Will April 11, 2011 at 8:39 am #

    The dissonance is horribly painful in those little birther craniums today.

  219. avatar
    Bovril April 11, 2011 at 8:51 am #

    But MichaelN….how does this all fold into your personal and ridiculous interpretation of Calvins Case ……….suckah

    Oh, by the way, as an Australian, according to your birfoon mate Nancy1 you have no right to participate in these conversations so shut up, sit down and sod off.

  220. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 8:56 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think some posters here have been well and fully owned or perhaps the better word is pwned. It does seem to have come down to a binary choice: Dr. Fukino is lying or you are.

    When it comes to Lucas Smith I’d go with the latter of the two Doc

  221. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    Lucas D. Smith: You people are like little children. Lol! I have lost all respect for the posters on this forum. I like university style debate but that is no longer possible here.Peace my little children. Lol!

    What is this the 8th time you’ve said you were leaving Lucas? I’m surprised though it took you another week before you had another meltdown. I think you’re losing it.

  222. avatar
    Wile E. April 11, 2011 at 9:00 am #

    MichaelN: It’s what the HRS states that matters.

    i.e. a COLB is excluded from being considered for all purposes the same as the original’

    Do you have a problem reading the statute?

    Here, I will dumb it down for you.

    HRS 338-13
    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health SHALL, upon request, furnish to any applicant a

    (A) certified copy of any certificate, [an image copy of the original held on file] or

    (B) the contents of any certificate, [ALL the contents, because the following is a part] or

    (C) any part thereof. [a COLB]

    Wouldn’t this particular section be more reasonably “dumbed down” like this?

    HRS 338-13
    §338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health SHALL, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of

    (A) any certificate, or

    (B) the contents of any certificate, or

    (C) any part thereof.

  223. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 9:01 am #

    Suranis: N+1

    You are indeed correct. That is the formula for the amount of confirmations NC1 needs. Its obvious by now it’s plus one for whatever is presented at any given time.

  224. avatar
    Reality Check April 11, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): What is this the 8th time you’ve said you were leaving Lucas? I’m surprised though it took you another week before you had another meltdown. I think you’re losing it.

    My count is 7 but hey who is counting? We all know he will be back.

    BTW, whatever happened to Ron “I see shadows” Polland?

  225. avatar
    Majority Will April 11, 2011 at 9:06 am #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): What is this the 8th time you’ve said you were leaving Lucas?I’m surprised though it took you another week before you had another meltdown.I think you’re losing it.

    Of course a con artist is pissed when overnight one of his scams drops like a stone in value to potential gullible birther marks.

    Statements from reputable authorities makes it harder for the grifter to steal from people.

  226. avatar
    The Magic M April 11, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    > The dissonance is horribly painful in those little birther craniums today.

    Probably because their feeble minds are on their own until their “masterminds” (using the term very loosely here) have come up with the proper memes to feed to them.

    The newest Fukino statements are hard to ignore (and birfers know well that “she’s lying” is not going to cut it with the public) and until someone tells them how to spin it this time, they have to try for themselves – and it’s funny to see how utterly they fail at it.

  227. avatar
    brygenon April 11, 2011 at 9:32 am #

    MichaelN: Cite the statute of regulation that requires a raised seal.

    1) 28 USC 1739.

    2) Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1).

    3) The requirements for “A certified birth certificate” at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

    Turns out the birthers were lying and Obama’s COLB is a state record that invokes the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution, a domestic public document under seal that is admissible as a self-authenticating document, and a certified birth certificate that proves U.S. citizenship by birth.

  228. avatar
    Jules April 11, 2011 at 9:54 am #

    Lucas D. Smith: There is no long form Hawaiian birth certificate for Obama. At best there is an affidavit of birth.

    This assertion is, at best, unsubstantiated speculation.

  229. avatar
    Jules April 11, 2011 at 10:23 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: Ike was “capable of acquiring foreign citizenship” (I am using Borderaven’s terminology on Obama here)

    It would be most problematic to treat the mere capacity to acquire foreign nationality as rendering someone ineligible for the Presidency.

    I and countless others have noted here that foreign nationality is a matter of foreign law. Any nation may, subject to its own constitution and laws, make any person one of its nationals. For this reason, the logical consequence of treating foreign nationality as disqualifying is to give each and every foreign state veto power over any and every potential Presidential candidate.

    In addition to circumstances in which someone does acquire foreign nationality, there are numerous circumstances where someone is capable of acquiring it on application or taking other steps and chooses not to do so. I know several US citizens who have had indefinite leave to remain in the UK long enough to obtain British citizenship on application but have not yet chosen to apply. They would unquestionably be rendered ineligible to be President if mere potential to be a dual national were disqualifying. However, there is an interesting question about those whose circumstances could qualify them for residence in a foreign country and potential citizenship but have not taken any steps toward such residence.

    There are many people who have money or skills that would qualify them for UK visas that could lead to indefinite leave and eligibility for naturalisation. Are nearly all multi-millionaires ineligible to be President because they have the ability to obtain Tier 1 (Investor) visas that could eventually lead to indefinite leave to remain in the UK and eligibility for naturalisation?

  230. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 10:39 am #

    Jules: Are nearly all multi-millionaires ineligible to be President because they have the ability to obtain Tier 1 (Investor) visas that could eventually lead to indefinite leave to remain in the UK and eligibility for naturalisation?

    Anyone of good character (i.e.,no criminal record) is eligible to become a citizen of the Carribbean island nation of Dominica. The cost for an individual is <$100,000 US, a sum that anyone in a position to make a serious run for President can come up with. It does not require one ever to reside there, it simply takes a brief visit for an interview, You do not need to renounce any other citizenships and passports you have. The government of Dominica will keep the fact that you are a citizen completely confidential.

    It is thus the case that any presidential candidate could have current, active citizenship in Dominica (something of more concern than a right they may have held as a minor and allowed to lapse), and there is no way for them or the US government or anyone else to prove either way.

  231. avatar
    Thrifty April 11, 2011 at 11:32 am #

    Dr. Fukino emphasized: “It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that.” She reiterated that computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

    Standard birther response: “But no state official has confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii!”

  232. avatar
    dch April 11, 2011 at 11:46 am #

    Standard birther response: “But no state official has confirmed Obama’s birth in Hawaii!”

    Complete idiots at this point.
    Yes – and they have LOST 90+ cases in a row in US courtrooms – with all lower court decisions upheld upon review on appeals.

    They must have the worst record in US history for failing.
    Now Dr. Fukino has restated everuthing that was said two plus years ago by people on this board.

    So what is left birthers?
    What are you going to do now?
    LOL

  233. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    Slartibartfast said:

    Which would leave Republican candidates who couldn’t meet this standard to challenge it in court (I’d love to see the birther press trying to spin that!

    Which Republican candidates do you mean? Donald Trump? Which Republican candidates do you suspect were not be born in a hospital and would not have a long form birth certificate?

    Bob

  234. avatar
    gorefan April 11, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    MichaelN: Cite the statute of regulation that requires a raised seal.

    “§11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.”
    “(a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape…..
    “(b) The official seal of the department of health shall be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify commissions of appointment of deputy directors and notaries public,certificates, and other formal official documents on which the official seal has been customarily used or is appropriate to be used, as the director of health may determine on a case-by-case basis.”

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/11-1.pdf

  235. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 12:08 pm #

    Robert Clark: Which Republican candidates do you mean? Donald Trump? Which Republican candidates do you suspect were not be born in a hospital and would not have a long form birth certificate?

    Possibly all of them, since none have shown a “long-form birth certificate” or any birth certificate at all. I leave out Trump because he is not going to run, hence is not a candidate and the images he showed have yet to be authenticated by any official of new York City. Furthermore, even if Mayor Bloomberg himself vouched for the documents, i would not believe it. Most people in NYC would say almost anything if it got Trump out of town.

  236. avatar
    gorefan April 11, 2011 at 12:12 pm #

    Majority Will: Of course a con artist is pissed when overnight one of his scams drops like a stone in value to potential gullible birther marks.

    Sometimes a known fake item can be worth a considerable amount of money. Not as much as the genuine item, but still enough to get a value meal at McDonalds.

    If I were Lucas, I would but that Kenya thing on E-Bay under a description like:

    “Own a small piece of history, Own the document that started a nationwide frenzy, Own the document that confounded the experts”. Phrases like that. Who knows, he might get some action.

    “Without promotion something terrible happens… Nothing!” P.T. Barnum

  237. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 11, 2011 at 12:17 pm #

    Robert Clark:
    Slartibartfast said:

    Which Republican candidates do you mean? Donald Trump? Which Republican candidates do you suspect were not be born in a hospital and would not have a long form birth certificate?

    Bob

    I think you will find that many states no longer give out ‘long forms’, but instead have official birth certificates that are similar to the COLB. Depending on the specific requirements of any particular birther bill, (in particular, those designed to exclude President Obama based on the assumption that he wasn’t born in a hospital) President Obama should be able to satisfy them (unless they are blatantly unConstitutional) and other candidates may not be in a position to do so – this would be the political equivalent of using someone’s own strength against them. The birthers (yourself included) would have to accept President Obama and reject anyone who couldn’t meet their standard or have their hypocrisy exposed.

    Someone please remind the last birther out to shut off the lights…

  238. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    Robert Clark: Slartibartfast said:Which Republican candidates do you mean? Donald Trump? Which Republican candidates do you suspect were not be born in a hospital and would not have a long form birth certificate?Bob

    Can you state which hospital each of the supposed Republican candidates were born in?

  239. avatar
    Thrifty April 11, 2011 at 12:37 pm #

    charo: I don’t mean as in coding the birth certificate, but when the form was filled out, do you think the sensibilities of the individual were taken into account in 1961? If the mother said my husband is African, would the nurse write that classification down or put what she was used to putting? Or if the application was filled out by the patient herself, would the final certificate be written with the exact words used?
    I am thinking 1961.

    I’m thinking that in 1961 and 2011, overworked nurses have better things to do than debate demographics with their patients.

  240. avatar
    Thrifty April 11, 2011 at 12:43 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I must say that this article “made my day.” In the grand scheme of things, it means absolutely nothing since it only adds confirmation to something already well-known. Nevertheless, it forces birthers further into the fringe, which is where they belonged from the beginning.
    It’s sort of an epiphany for me, the realization that birther arguments have become so absurd on the face of it, that they don’t require refutation.

    Birthers remind me of my first encounter with ticks, when I was 7 years old.

    I found this thing. I thought it was a spider. I kept stepping on it, crushing it, putting piles of heavy books and sitting on it, yet it didn’t die. This confused me, and I asked my dad why the spider wouldn’t die. He explained to me that ticks are resilient and can’t be crushed; you have to burn them or flush them down the toilet.

    Birthers are like normal human beings, except that you can reason with a normal human beings. Birthers just stick to their story no matter how much evidence you throw at them. It doesn’t jibe with my normal perception of reality.

  241. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 12:47 pm #

    Jules: I and countless others have noted here that foreign nationality is a matter of foreign law. Any nation may, subject to its own constitution and laws, make any person one of its nationals. For this reason, the logical consequence of treating foreign nationality as disqualifying is to give each and every foreign state veto power over any and every potential Presidential candidate.

    Jules: This has arisen as an issue in the upcoming Canadian election. The leader of the opposition, Michael Ignatieff, was born and raised in Canada, but has lived in the UK and the US for much of his adult life. While he was never a citizen of the UK or the US, as a Commonwealth ciitizen he was allowed to vote in British elections while living in the UK and did so.

    While this does not legally bar him from serving as Prime Minister, it’s certainly something that can be (and is being) raised during a political campaign. That seems to me to be the proper way to deal with issues. Let them be put before the voters and let them decide what is important and what is not. Are the birthers saying that Canadians are mature enough to weigh these issues as they cast their votes and Americans aren’t and need legal prohibitions to protect them from themselves?

  242. avatar
    Mik Taerg April 11, 2011 at 1:04 pm #

    it’s wont be over until Donald hasn’t finished reading the Internet,

  243. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 1:15 pm #

    Scientist: …I leave out Trump because he is not going to run, hence is not a candidate and the images he showed have yet to be authenticated by any official of new York City.Furthermore, even if Mayor Bloomberg himself vouched for the documents, i would not believe it.Most people in NYC would say almost anything if it got Trump out of town.

    You sound like a “birther”. ;-)

    Bob

  244. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 1:55 pm #

    Scientist April 10, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Sef: “But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.
    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    This is the worth re-iterating. To those who say, “Obama, just release the original” HE CAN’T.
    HE CAN’T
    HE CAN’T
    That is the law in Hawaii. Is Hawaii unique in this regard? I doubt it. That means that other candidates born in other states will probably be unable to release original documents either. Effectively the biirthers are saying if you have a b.c issued many years ago, maybe you can run. If you lost it, too bad. Sort of like saying if I lose my wallet with my driver’s license in it I CAN NEVER DRIVE AGAIN.
    The stupidity boggles the mind.

    I severely doubt it’s LAW that says a *copy* can’t be released to the person named on the certificate. I strongly suspect it’s merely current Hawaii health department *policy* that they aren’t normally released, the current *policy* being that it’s only the short form released.
    Firstly it just doesn’t make sense that the state government would pass a LAW that would say only a copy of the short form certificate could be released and not a copy of the long form. Is the state government going to pass a law specifying each component that is allowed to appear in the short form?
    Secondly, on this page Miki Booth shows a long form birth certificate issued to a friend just weeks ago from Hawaii:

    “Hawaii Official and Ex-Official Lie to Cover Their Tracks
    DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN RAMPS UP IN RESPONSE TO DONALD TRUMP’S ASSERTIONS THAT OBAMA HAS NOT SHOWN A REAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE
    by Miki Booth
    (Apr. 10, 2011)
    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/

    Note also Booth makes the charge that the spokesman for the Hawaii Attorney General’s office Joshua Wisch who claimed this information couldn’t be released is a former chairman of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in Hawaii, which raises the possibility he might be covering for Obama.
    In any case the Attorney General for Hawaii David M. Louie, a Gov. Neil Abercrombie appointee, needs to come out and correct this incorrect information put out by his spokesman. If not then that raises the question if the top law enforcement official in the state is more concerned with covering for Obama or than with properly informing the public about applicable laws in the state.
    We now have two cases where a Hawaii state official in trying to cover for Obama wound up making things worse for him. First, it was governor Neil Abercrombie, now this Atty. Gen. spokesman Joshua Wisch.
    Perhaps they should have taken the approach Obama appears to be taking: just take the “fifth”.

    Bob

  245. avatar
    Rickey April 11, 2011 at 1:56 pm #

    Robert Clark:

    Which Republican candidates do you mean? Donald Trump? Which Republican candidates do you suspect were not be born in a hospital and would not have a long form birth certificate?

    I’m not running for President, but I was born in New York two years after Trump and I have been trying for two months to get a copy of my “long form” birth certificate. Thus far I have been unable to find anyone, either at the state or local level, who can tell me how to get it.

    The birth certificate which my parents received a week after I was born contains less information than Obama’s COLB – no hospital name, no name of doctor, no names of witnesses.

  246. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    Robert Clark: You sound like a “birther”.

    I just believe in applying the same standards to all candidates, regardlless of their skin pigmentation, parental origin, religion (real or imagined), height, gender, etc. These rules include:

    1. Born in a hospital. This immediately disqualifies all Presidents except Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr and Obama
    2. They must have a real birth certificate and send a copy to all registered voters. Images on the internet don’t count. All boxes must be filled in and the doctor’s signature must be legible so we can slander him/her if dead or harass him/her if alive. So far, all current and former Presidents and all candidates have failed to quallify.
    3.In case anyone makes it past #2, all certificates must be vouched for by an offiicial of the issuing jurisdiction.
    4. However, officials have been known to lie, so even if a potential candidate passes #3, they are still disqualified.

  247. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 1:59 pm #

    Robert Clark: Note also Booth makes the charge that the spokesman for the Hawaii Attorney General’s office Joshua Wisch who claimed this information couldn’t be released is a former chairman of Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in Hawaii, which raises the possibility he might be covering for Obama.
    In any case the Attorney General for Hawaii David M. Louie, a Gov. Neil Abercrombie appointee, needs to come out and correct this incorrect information put out by his spokesman. If not then that raises the question if the top law enforcement official in the state is more concerned with covering for Obama or than with properly informing the public about applicable laws in the state.
    We now have two cases where a Hawaii state official in trying to cover for Obama wound up making things worse for him. First, it was governor Neil Abercrombie, now this Atty. Gen. spokesman Joshua Wisch.
    Perhaps they should have taken the approach Obama appears to be taking: just take the “fifth”.

    That document is lacking a seal. So this is not an official copy. Maybe you can explain why this was released to Post & Email a few days before lacking the stamp and date issued?

    Perhaps you can explain why Arizona no longer issues long form certificates to anyone born after 1989.

  248. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 2:00 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 12:27 pm Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote) #
    Robert Clark: Slartibartfast said:Which Republican candidates do you mean? Donald Trump? Which Republican candidates do you suspect were not be born in a hospital and would not have a long form birth certificate?Bob
    Can you state which hospital each of the supposed Republican candidates were born in?

    It is extremely unlikely in the extreme for anyone born in the U.S. in recent decades not to have been born in a hospital or at least have had a midwife present during the delivery. In both cases the person would have a valid long form birth certificate.

    Bob

  249. avatar
    Rickey April 11, 2011 at 2:07 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I downloaded the BC from the Mikki Booth article at the Pee and Eee and enhanced the contrast. The date looks much more like “2001‘ than “2011‘ to me. A higher res image would confirm this, of course.

    Agreed. I zoomed in on the image and it looks like 2001 to me.

  250. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm #

    Robert Clark: It is extremely unlikely in the extreme for anyone born in the U.S. in recent decades not to have been born in a hospital or at least have had a midwife present during the delivery. In both cases the person would have a valid long form birth certificate.Bob

    Most states don’t release long forms anymore since most of the records have switched to electronic. Short forms have all the information required on them for being eligible for the President short of the 14 years residency which not even the long form would say.

    But I see you didn’t answer my question. I told you to state which hospitals any of the republican candidates were born in. I see that your lack of an answer must mean you don’t know and want to hold Obama to a different standard. At least we know Obama was born at Kapiolani. Which is more than we can say for the Republican candidates.

  251. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm #

    Lil’ Red April 10, 2011 at 3:29 pm Lil’ Red(Quote) #
    Mary Brown: It seems that she can speak more freely now that she is not in an official capacity.
    You are absolutely correct! Now that she is not speaking in any official capacity, she can say whatever she wants.
    It is also important to observe that Dr. Fukino was not quoted to have said that Obama’s birth certificate was signed by a physician. That is something the writer of the article concluded. (Not that a quote from the ex-director would have been any better.)
    Why are all of you so upset? Did you really expect that anything less than documented evidence of birth in a hospital was going to end the controversy?

    If she really could speak freely. She could and should have said what was the doctors name and the name of the hospital.

    Bob

  252. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 2:12 pm #

    Robert Clark: I severely doubt it’s LAW that says a *copy* can’t be released to the person named on the certificate. I strongly suspect it’s merely current Hawaii health department *policy* that they aren’t normally released, the current *policy* being that it’s only the short form released.
    Firstly it just doesn’t make sense that the state government would pass a LAW that would say only a copy of the short form certificate could be released and not a copy of the long form. Is the state government going to pass a law specifying each component that is allowed to appear in the short form?

    No disrespect intended to your legal credentials, but I consider the Attorney General of Hawaii more authoritative on the laws of Hawaii than you are. Do you practice law in Hawaii? Anyway, whether law or administrative policy those are the rules Hawaii (and plenty of other states, I would guess) work under. If you move to Hawaii, you can run for AG on a platform of changing their rules.

    Robert Clark: Secondly, on this page Miki Booth shows a long form birth certificate issued to a friend just weeks ago from Hawaii

    That’s not a certificate, it’s a pdf of a photo of something. I don’t know who Miki Booth is nor her nameless friend. This is 3rd hand at best. No officiial has ever said that Miki Booth’s nameless friend was born in Hawaii. Completely without value

    Robert Clark: In any case the Attorney General for Hawaii David M. Louie, a Gov. Neil Abercrombie appointee, needs to come out and correct this incorrect information put out by his spokesman. If not then that raises the question if the top law enforcement official in the state is more concerned with covering for Obama or than with properly informing the public about applicable laws in the state

    There is no evidence that what Mr Wisch said is incorrect. Therefore there is no reason for the AG to correct the statement. That is how any reasonable person would interpret the matter as it stands.

  253. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 2:17 pm #

    Robert Clark: It is extremely unlikely in the extreme for anyone born in the U.S. in recent decades not to have been born in a hospital or at least have had a midwife present during the delivery. In both cases the person would have a valid long form birth certificate.Bob

    What is “extremely unlikely in the extreme”? I have personally met someone who gave birth in a taxi on the way to the hospital. This was in Pennsylvania. Does this child have a long form? I don’t know, but I believe they should be able to run for President either way

  254. avatar
    Majority Will April 11, 2011 at 2:41 pm #

    Scientist: No disrespect intended to your legal credentials, but I consider the Attorney General of Hawaii more authoritative on the laws of Hawaii than you are.Do you practice law in Hawaii?Anyway, whether law or administrative policy those are the rules Hawaii (and plenty of other states, I would guess) work under.If you move to Hawaii, you can run for AG on a platform of changing their rules.

    That’s not a certificate, it’s a pdf of a photo of something.I don’t knowwho Miki Booth is nor her nameless friend.This is 3rd hand at best.No officiial has ever said that Miki Booth’s nameless friend was born in Hawaii.Completely without value

    There is no evidence that what Mr Wisch said is incorrect. Therefore there is no reason for the AG to correct the statement.That is how any reasonable person would interpret the matter as it stands.

    Yes, but Bob the birther idiot is quoting from the Post & E-Mail. That must be an authoritative, unbiased source, right? After all, Rondeau, the seditionist of the P & E broke the story about Obama being a shape shifting reptile in all seriousness:

    “Even something as simple and elemental as his genetic makeup is question. What went into making the man? Does he have African or Caucasian or Arab DNA or all three*? Then again, even that is irrelevant given the bigger secrets he hides.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/03/03/whos-behind-the-mask-of-obama/

    *Links within this groundbreaking story reveal “Obama is a Lizard – Reptilian – Alien”:

    “I’ve mentioned on my Radio show how I keep seeing Obama and/as a Lizard all over the codes…here’s just one instance..I’ll try to post more soon. I”ve tried to just keep it simple so you can understand what you’re seeing and see the terms involved…”

    http://www.hiddencodes.com/obama/index.htm

    Another link from the P & E article on Obama the Reptilian Shapeshifter:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjLy_obFi60

    Hard hitting journalism at its best.

    It’s no surprise that a birther fool like Bob would cite the Post & E-Mail as a reliable source.

    Rondeau, her friends and her online tabloid, the Post & E-Mail openly advocate a violent, armed overthrow of the U.S. Government. This is sadly typical of the diseased birther mentality.

  255. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 2:43 pm #

    Just to add one more point. When you’re dealing with government, the actual statutes voted by Congress and State Legislatures are only thhe beginning, not the ennd or their day-to-day operating rules. In my time in the biotech industry, I have dealt with FDA, NIH, the US Patent and Trademark Office, the Dept of Agriculture and several other federal agencies. All of them have myriad rules and procedures that were never specifically voted on by Congress. However, if you deal with those agencies you are bound by all of those strictures. If you don’t like them, you can lobby Congress to specifically overrule them or sue in court. Unless you have a busload of money and many years (even then), good luck to you.

    Whether the procedures laid out by the Hawaii DOH and the AG are actual laws or merely agency regs is quite immaterial. They are how those agencies operate. If they say you can’t have a long form b.c, then you can’t have one, no matter what you think the statutes say. If they won’t give Obama one, then he would have to sue them to get one. And I simply don’t think he will or should do that.

  256. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 2:08 pm Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote) #
    Robert Clark: It is extremely unlikely in the extreme for anyone born in the U.S. in recent decades not to have been born in a hospital or at least have had a midwife present during the delivery. In both cases the person would have a valid long form birth certificate.Bob
    Most states don’t release long forms anymore since most of the records have switched to electronic. Short forms have all the information required on them for being eligible for the President short of the 14 years residency which not even the long form would say.
    But I see you didn’t answer my question. I told you to state which hospitals any of the republican candidates were born in. I see that your lack of an answer must mean you don’t know and want to hold Obama to a different standard. At least we know Obama was born at Kapiolani. Which is more than we can say for the Republican candidates.

    Actually, we still don’t know if he was born at Kapiolani or even in a hospital since Fukino didn’t give that info. Perhaps MSNBC can do a follow up interview where she is asked for everything she remembers about his long form birth certificate.
    In any case, I severely doubt the other Presidential candidates would have any problem at all revealing the birth hospital and doctor.
    Why do I doubt it? Because it makes no sense at all! That’s the overriding reason why I myself am still interested in debating this issue.

    Bob

  257. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 2:50 pm #

    Scientist: No disrespect intended to your legal credentials, but I consider the Attorney General of Hawaii more authoritative on the laws of Hawaii than you are.Do you practice law in Hawaii?Anyway, whether law or administrative policy those are the rules Hawaii (and plenty of other states, I would guess) work under.If you move to Hawaii, you can run for AG on a platform of changing their rules.

    Actually it wasn’t the Atty. Gen. but a spokesman for the office. Essentially a PR guy.
    I would be interested in seeing if any one has a link to the laws about releasing birth certificate info. I severely doubt it will say only a short form can be released.

    Bob

  258. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    Scientist: What is “extremely unlikely in the extreme”? I have personally met someone who gave birth in a taxi on the way to the hospital. This was in Pennsylvania. Does this child have a long form? I don’t know, but I believe they should be able to run for President either way

    I was always taught not to use the same adjective in the same sentence

  259. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm #

    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 2:17 pm Scientist(Quote) #

    Robert Clark: It is extremely unlikely in the extreme for anyone born in the U.S. in recent decades not to have been born in a hospital or at least have had a midwife present during the delivery. In both cases the person would have a valid long form birth certificate.Bob

    What is “extremely unlikely in the extreme”? I have personally met someone who gave birth in a taxi on the way to the hospital. This was in Pennsylvania. Does this child have a long form? I don’t know, but I believe they should be able to run for President either way

    I would say that counts as extremely unlikely in the extreme. In such cases it would be even doubly more extremely unlikely in the extreme if the mother and child were not quickly taken to hospital.

    Bob

  260. avatar
    G April 11, 2011 at 2:56 pm #

    Robert Clark: Why do I doubt it? Because it makes no sense at all! That’s the overriding reason why I myself am still interested in debating this issue.

    *sigh* Bob, you merely “see” things you wish to see and have doubts because you deeply want to have doubts. The only reason these issues “make no sense” to you is because they don’t support the results your pre-conceived bias desires.

    Back in reality, any legitimate concerns serious people might have had were satisifed a long time ago.

  261. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 2:59 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote) #

    Scientist: What is “extremely unlikely in the extreme”? …

    I was always taught not to use the same adjective in the same sentence.

    I was attempting to be humorous in my phraseology, but nobody here appreciates my humor.

    Bob

  262. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 11, 2011 at 3:03 pm #

    Robert Clark: I was attempting to be humorous in my phraseology, but nobody here appreciates my humor.

    Bob

    That’s because we’re laughing at you, not with you…

  263. avatar
    JoZeppy April 11, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Robert Clark: Actually, we still don’t know if he was born at Kapiolani or even in a hospital since Fukino didn’t give that info. Perhaps MSNBC can do a follow up interview where she is asked for everything she remembers about his long form birth certificate.

    And I highly doubt she would answer those questions, as it would be a violation of various state and federal privacy laws. And again, why would any rational person doubt that he was born at Kapiolani, or for that matter, why would anyone even care?

    Robert Clark: In any case, I severely doubt the other Presidential candidates would have any problem at all revealing the birth hospital and doctor.

    And if they wish to release that information, that’s their perrogative…but to require them to would unconstitutional. Kinda like when both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were asked “boxers of briefs.” Clinton answers, Gingrich berated the questioner for asking stupid questions and wasting everyone’s time. Both are reasonable responses to a stupid question that is of no import.

    Robert Clark: Why do I doubt it? Because it makes no sense at all! That’s the overriding reason why I myself am still interested in debating this issue.

    No, you doubt it because you’re a nutter. What makes no sense at all is why people are still clinging to this delusion without a shred of evidence to support anything but Hawaiian birth.

  264. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Robert Clark: I was attempting to be humorous in my phraseology, but nobody here appreciates my humor.Bob

    No I actually laugh when you’re serious about this birther BS you spout. It’s funny because I’ve heard the same concerns for over 2 years that have been repeatedly answered.

  265. avatar
    G April 11, 2011 at 3:10 pm #

    Robert Clark: I would say that counts as extremely unlikely in the extreme. In such cases it would be even doubly more extremely unlikely in the extreme if the mother and child were not quickly taken to hospital.Bob

    While we can all agree that in our modern 21st century first-world nation, hospital births are increasingly the norm and most assuredly more so than they were decades ago, that still doesn’t mean that everyone goes to hospitals or lives near one these days, nor that we can justify creating new laws REQUIRING someone to be born in a hospital in order to retain their citizenship rights, even if such venues for birth are the norm.

    You are merely drawing conclusions based on your gut feelings and perceptions of an issue, without any actual data to make that determination. It is one thing to say that such births are less likely and less common today. It is a much further stretch to just claim “extremely unlikely in the extreme”. Now you are just making up your own conclusions, without any data to back it up.

    Your need to go beyond a reasonable conclusion and have to claim something is nearly impossible in order to justify to yourself the weakest of exclusionary loopholes, in faint hopes that maybe, just maybe that could be used against Obama, is awfully desperate and pathetic.

    Not only would it be bad law and unnecessary to add such restrictions on citizenship in general, but also it would ultimately fail to achieve any real birther goals – Although birthers are now increasingly desperate to cling to any small scrap of hope, there is no realistic evidence that Obama wasn’t born in a hospital, just like all the existing information indicates. In the end, if such crazy restrictions were added, only other potential and future candidates would be face potential harm from such laws. Obama would be just fine.

  266. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 3:14 pm #

    Robert Clark: Actually, we still don’t know if he was born at Kapiolani or even in a hospital since Fukino didn’t give that info. Perhaps MSNBC can do a follow up interview where she is asked for everything she remembers about his long form birth certificate.In any case, I severely doubt the other Presidential candidates would have any problem at all revealing the birth hospital and doctor.Why do I doubt it? Because it makes no sense at all! That’s the overriding reason why I myself am still interested in debating this issue.Bob

    We know that he was born there because Kapiolani claimed such at their anniversary. They published the letter saying he was born there. So yes we do know that. We do not know which hospital Gingrinch, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, etc were born in.

    So again which hospitals were they born in?

  267. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm #

    Joey April 10, 2011 at 5:58 pm Joey(Quote) #

    nc1: Could you or anyone else point out the law preventing the release of the original birth certifiate to the preson who requests his own record?If there is no such law – the UIPA law allows the release of any record maintained by a government agency.
    Wisch’s claim flies in the face of common sense – we can ask for FBI’s records about us yet DoH birth certificate is a secretive document?

    Here’s a link to the statute.
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM

    It is obvious that the previous Attorney General, Mark Bennett’s interpretation and the new Attorney General, David Louie’s interpretation is that “certified copy” in the law refers to a Certification of Live Birth, not an original long form, vault copy birth certificate.

    If that is the applicable law then clearly it is not making any distinction between any short form or long form that can be released to the public.

    We are still left with the fact it is just current *policy* to just release the short form.

    Bob

  268. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 3:24 pm #

    Robert Clark: I would be interested in seeing if any one has a link to the laws about releasing birth certificate info. I severely doubt it will say only a short form can be released

    Please read and then re-read and then read again my post from 2:43 PM. Government agencies have whole books full of regulations, policies and procedures that are not encoded into the statutes. As long as they don’t specifically contradict statute, they are perfectly valid. Mr Wisch is trying to get it through your skull what rules the Hawaii DOH operates under, some of which are NOT codifiied in the statutes (see above).

    Those rules are that you cannot get a long-form to go. In-house dining only. Unless you can swear to me that you are a lawyer admitted to the bar in Hawaii, practicing in the area of Health law, I am going to believe Mr Wisch and not you.

  269. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 3:33 pm #

    Robert Clark: We are still left with the fact it is just current *policy* to just release the short form.

    Virtually everything government does in the day to day is policy not codified in the statutes. The fact that this is current policy means that you can’t get a long form,I can’t get a long form and Barack Obama can’t get a long form. No matter how much you dislike the policy or wish to pretend it doesn’t exist it does.

    Take an example. When you apply for a passport, the dimensions of the photo are speciified. Did Congress vote on that? Of course not. What happens if you show up with an 8″ x 10″ picture of yourself? No passport for you.

  270. avatar
    Robert Clark April 11, 2011 at 3:36 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 3:14 pm Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross)(Quote) #

    Robert Clark: Actually, we still don’t know if he was born at Kapiolani or even in a hospital since Fukino didn’t give that info. Perhaps MSNBC can do a follow up interview where she is asked for everything she remembers about his long form birth certificate.In any case, I severely doubt the other Presidential candidates would have any problem at all revealing the birth hospital and doctor.Why do I doubt it? Because it makes no sense at all! That’s the overriding reason why I myself am still interested in debating this issue.Bob

    We know that he was born there because Kapiolani claimed such at their anniversary. They published the letter saying he was born there. So yes we do know that. We do not know which hospital Gingrinch, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, etc were born in.
    So again which hospitals were they born in?

    I don’t know what hospital they were born in, nor am I a health department official or election official. I’m fairly sure they have drivers licenses; that doesn’t mean I know what their drivers license number is.
    In regards to Obama being born in Kapiolani that so called White House letter to Kapiolani still has not been confirmed as being from them. Now, Gov. Abercrombie won’t talk about the letter either because the White House won’t talk about it. What can he say? Yes I did get the letter from the White House, when the White House won’t admit? Or perhaps he could say instead, “No I didn’t get it from the White House. I faked White House stationary and forged Obama’s signature.”
    What the hell is this? It’s just a letter that tells what hospital you were born in. It’s not like it details the U.S. plans for responding to rogue nations acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Bob

  271. avatar
    jamese777 April 11, 2011 at 3:40 pm #

    Robert Clark: Actually, we still don’t know if he was born at Kapiolani or even in a hospital since Fukino didn’t give that info. Perhaps MSNBC can do a follow up interview where she is asked for everything she remembers about his long form birth certificate.In any case, I severely doubt the other Presidential candidates would have any problem at all revealing the birth hospital and doctor.Why do I doubt it? Because it makes no sense at all! That’s the overriding reason why I myself am still interested in debating this issue.Bob

    Why would a Republican Governor who campaigned for John McCain and delivered one of Sarah Palin’s endorsement speeches at the Republican National Convention deliberately lie to protect Barack Obama?
    Governor Lingle said that Obama was born at Kapiolani and she obviously got that information from Dr. Fukino and Dr. Onaka’s visits to look at Obama’s vault copy birth records.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html

  272. avatar
    Sef April 11, 2011 at 3:46 pm #

    Robert Clark: Actually, we still don’t know if he was born at Kapiolani

    Why don’t you write a book about the things you don’t know. I’m sure it would be fascinating reading. It might even turn out to be the largest book ever written.

  273. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 3:55 pm #

    Robert Clark: I don’t know what hospital they were born in, nor am I a health department official or election official. I’m fairly sure they have drivers licenses; that doesn’t mean I know what their drivers license number is.
    In regards to Obama being born in Kapiolani that so called White House letter to Kapiolani still has not been confirmed as being from them. Now, Gov. Abercrombie won’t talk about the letter either because the White House won’t talk about it. What can he say? Yes I did get the letter from the White House, when the White House won’t admit? Or perhaps he could say instead, “No I didn’t get it from the White House. I faked White House stationary and forged Obama’s signature.”
    What the hell is this? It’s just a letter that tells what hospital you were born in. It’s not like it details the U.S. plans for responding to rogue nations acquiring nuclear weapons.

    You should release a whole set of encyclopedia brittanicas written by Bob Clark of information you don’t know because at this point it’s becoming quite obvious that you like to opine on stuff you can speak with absolutely no authority on.

    So you don’t know what hospital they were born in. Congratulations you know a lot more about Obama than you do about them. Obama has a drivers license as well and a passport.

    Really you think someone would willingly forge white house letterhead? You do know that would be a criminal offense. Letters on White House letterhead are self evident. The point is that the hospital in question used it at their anniversary celebration. So are you claiming now that the hospital was in error?

  274. avatar
    Suranis April 11, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Really you think someone would willingly forge white house letterhead? You do know that would be a criminal offense. Letters on White House letterhead are self evident. The point is that the hospital in question used it at their anniversary celebration. So are you claiming now that the hospital was in error?

    Not only that, but have the Governor of the state read the forged letter on state TV AND put the letter on its website, Thereby publicly announcing this criminal offense and forgery to the world, and giving evidence for any future prosecution. Homehow I don’t see that happening because I really doubt that the lawyers for that hospital are of the caliber of Orly Taitz.

    Oh yeah, the White House has not yelled to get that forgery off the Hospital website either.

  275. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 4:25 pm #

    Suranis: Not only that, but have the Governor of the state read the forged letter on state TV AND put the letter on its website, Thereby publicly announcing this criminal offense and forgery to the world, and giving evidence for any future prosecution. Homehow I don’t see that happening because I really doubt that the lawyers for that hospital are of the caliber of Orly Taitz.Oh yeah, the White House has not yelled to get that forgery off the Hospital website either.

    Oh yeah the white house must be in on the conspiracy to allow forged white house documents out into the public!!

  276. avatar
    JoZeppy April 11, 2011 at 4:26 pm #

    Robert Clark: I don’t know what hospital they were born in, nor am I a health department official or election official. I’m fairly sure they have drivers licenses; that doesn’t mean I know what their drivers license number is.

    And why aren’t you demanding to know? I mean if you’ve seen them driving, how do you know they’re not breaking the law. As for the President, I know he was born in Hawaii, because I’ve seen an images of his birth certificate. I’ve seen the confirmation of the fact by the state officials of Hawaii, I’ve seen the letter he wrote to the hospital that he believes he was born in, and I’ve the now governor read that letter, and, of course, I really don’t care what hospital he was born in, as long as he was born in the US, and there is little doubt of that fact.

    Robert Clark: In regards to Obama being born in Kapiolani that so called White House letter to Kapiolani still has not been confirmed as being from them. Now, Gov. Abercrombie won’t talk about the letter either because the White House won’t talk about it. What can he say? Yes I did get the letter from the White House, when the White House won’t admit? Or perhaps he could say instead, “No I didn’t get it from the White House. I faked White House stationary and forged Obama’s signature.”

    And why exactly does the White House need to confirm it? Do you think they have nothing better to do than to keep answering stupid birther questions? And what do you want Gov. Abercrobie to say? He just read the letter (and it wasn’t sent to him, it was sent to the hospital). The hospital isn’t exactly hiding from the letter (they’ve used it in fundraising and have published images of it). You seem to mistake have total disdain for birthers as meaning anything more than the White House treating birthers anything more than the butt of a joke.

    Robert Clark: What the hell is this? It’s just a letter that tells what hospital you were born in. It’s not like it details the U.S. plans for responding to rogue nations acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Exactly. Which is why it is being treated as the non-issue it is. You seem to be under the assumption that everything relating to the nativity story of the President has to be confirmed, and re-confirmed 5 different ways. The President sent a letter. End of story.

  277. avatar
    Majority Will April 11, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): You should release a whole set of encyclopedia brittanicas written by Bob Clark of information you don’t know because at this point it’s becoming quite obvious that you like to opine on stuff you can speak with absolutely no authority on.

    So you don’t know what hospital they were born in.Congratulations you know a lot more about Obama than you do about them.Obama has a drivers license as well and a passport.

    Really you think someone would willingly forge white house letterhead?You do know that would be a criminal offense. Letters on White House letterhead are self evident.The point is that the hospital in question used it at their anniversary celebration.So are you claiming now that the hospital was in error?

    This birther fool’s obsessions and ranting are borderline paranoid and psychotic.

    He keeps babbling that it’s insignificant and no big deal but HE MUST KNOW NOW ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

    Holy crap, how about it’s really NOHFB and this birther should get help for OCD?

    That and a good slap and tickle from Ockham’s Razor.

  278. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 4:41 pm #

    Majority Will: This birther fool’s obsessions and ranting are borderline paranoid and psychotic.He keeps babbling that it’s insignificant and no big deal but HE MUST KNOW NOW ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Holy crap, how about it’s really NOHFB and this birther should get help for OCD?That and a good slap and tickle from Ockham’s Razor.

    He’s like smeagol or should i say gollum

  279. avatar
    Majority Will April 11, 2011 at 4:52 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): He’s like smeagol or should i say gollum

    Smeagol: Leave now, and never come back!
    Gollum: No!
    Smeagol: Leave now, and never come back!
    [Gollum screams in frustration]
    Smeagol: LEAVE! NOW! AND NEVER COME BACK!
    [Gollum is silent]
    Smeagol: [looks around] We told him to go away… and away he goes, Precious! Gone, gone, gone! Smeagol is free!

  280. avatar
    Suranis April 11, 2011 at 4:54 pm #

    hey i know. maybe Obama wrote a forged letter from Obama to Kaapiolani and that’s why the are keeping mum, to avoid the scandal of admitting he wrote a fake letter from himself.

    That kind of thing can get you thrown in jail you know.

  281. avatar
    Bovril April 11, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    Suranis,

    You have now created the next Birfoon Meme…. 8-)

  282. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 5:30 pm #

    Suranis: hey i know. maybe Obama wrote a forged letter from Obama to Kaapiolani and that’s why the are keeping mum, to avoid the scandal of admitting he wrote a fake letter from himself.That kind of thing can get you thrown in jail you know.

    “I see you’ve constructed a new lightsaber”

  283. avatar
    Reality Check April 11, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    Rickey: Agreed. I zoomed in on the image and it looks like 2001 to me.

    I notice Rondeau has buried the Miki Booth article. I wonder if someone tipped her off that the long birth certificate was issued in 2001 and not 2011?

  284. avatar
    brygenon April 11, 2011 at 5:36 pm #

    Robert Clark: n any case, I severely doubt the other Presidential candidates would have any problem at all revealing the birth hospital and doctor.
    Why do I doubt it? Because it makes no sense at all! That’s the overriding reason why I myself am still interested in debating this issue.

    Do birthers ever think about the damage they could do?

    If the doctor is still alive, the name should definitely be withheld unless he or she gives informed consent to release it. Birthers have heaped derision and harassment on everyone who answers their questions. The doctor would be elderly now, and should not have to deal with the pestering and smearing for the crime of delivering a particular baby almost 50 years ago.

  285. avatar
    Sef April 11, 2011 at 5:45 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): “I see you’ve constructed a new lightsaber”

    Did you see this? http://www.geekologie.com/2011/03/british_believe_in_lightsabers.php

  286. avatar
    Scientist April 11, 2011 at 5:46 pm #

    If you kind people will permit me, i would like to summarize what we have learned and hopefully close out this thread:

    1. President Obama’s birth certificate was signed by a doctor. This means he was either born in a hospital in Hawaii, born outside a hospital in Hawaii with a doctor in attendance or born outside a hospital in Hawaii without a doctor in attendance, but examined by a doctor prior to Aug 8, 1961. The “Born in Kenya and registered on Aug 8, 1961 by Granny without any verification” hypothesis is defiinitively and completely killed.

    2. Hawaii does not currently issue long-form certificates. While statute probably does not forbid them from doing so, they have chosen not to issue them, something which they are entirely within their rights to do. If the President wanted to satisfy the birthers (why should he?), the best he could do is, on his next visit to the Aloha State, walk into the DOH, examine his certificate in the files and come out and tell us all, “I looked at my original certifiicate. I was indeed born in Hawaii.” That’s the end of the story.

  287. avatar
    bjphysics April 11, 2011 at 6:01 pm #

    Half n Half
    .
    A-ha, we finally have the absolute, irrefutable, un-impeachable (pun intended), un-usurpable (pun intended) proof to frog walk that Terrorist-Coddling, Warmongering, Wall Street-Loving, Socialistic, Godless Muslim Usurperist out of the Whitehouse because:
    .

    Dr. Chiyome Fukino said, ‘“she found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.”’
    .

    “That’s REALLY significant! Because, if half of his Birth Certificate is handwritten, then that implies changes to the original certificate! This happens in adoptions, or when changes to the original are requested.”
    .

    All kidding aside, that is the spin (er, I mean FACTS, FACTS, FACTS, we win you lose – we are close to our orgasmic moment of de-blackeny…) being put forth at FR (Fanatic Republic):
    .
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2703020/posts
    .
    After reading the post and informed eloquent responses there I am ready to give up, they are too clever for us – all hope is lost, frog walk is eminent. Y’all fight on without me, I’m going to cover my “Obama/Biden” stickers with “Defund NPR” stickers now while I still have time to disguise my political affiliations before the impending “you traitors will pay for this” purge begins.

  288. avatar
    kimba April 11, 2011 at 6:30 pm #

    charo: Bullsh*t is going on with the certificate.

    Charo finally came out as full-on birther.

  289. avatar
    JohnC April 11, 2011 at 7:02 pm #

    Scientist: If you kind people will permit me, i would like to summarize what we have learned and hopefully close out this thread:
    1. President Obama’s birth certificate was signed by a doctor. This means he was either born in a hospital in Hawaii, born outside a hospital in Hawaii with a doctor in attendance or born outside a hospital in Hawaii without a doctor in attendance, but examined by a doctor prior to Aug 8, 1961. The “Born in Kenya and registered on Aug 8, 1961 by Granny without any verification” hypothesis is defiinitively and completely killed.
    2. Hawaii does not currently issue long-form certificates. While statute probably does not forbid them from doing so, they have chosen not to issue them, something which they are entirely within their rights to do. If the President wanted to satisfy the birthers (why should he?), the best he could do is, on his next visit to the Aloha State, walk into the DOH, examine his certificate in the files and come out and tell us all, “I looked at my original certifiicate. I was indeed born in Hawaii.” That’s the end of the story.

    I wish we could close it, but birthers are fairly resistant to virtually all known forms of logic. Let me put on my pretend birther hat and see what logical leaps I can concoct to maintain the claim that there are still “questions” to be answered:

    1. Fukino may be lying because she’s a lib-ruhl or because she was handsomely paid off or threatened by the Obama people (or by Lingle/Abercombie). Perhaps Obama’s grandmother forged a doctor’s signature on it. Perhaps Stanley Dunham brought the long-form with her to Kenya so that the Kenyan doctor could sign it. (Then she could obtain a Hawaiian birth certificate under the make-believe foreign registration law in 1961.)

    2. Hawaii refuses to offer long-form certificates just to protect Obama. Obama could visit the Vital Records department and then falsely claim to have seen his birth certificate, and state officials would be prohibited from confirming or denying his account under state law.

    I’m going to have to stop there. This pretzel logic is starting to give me a headache. (But I’m sure some authentic birther will be willing to pick up the slack.)

  290. avatar
    JohnC April 11, 2011 at 7:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I must say that this article “made my day.” In the grand scheme of things, it means absolutely nothing since it only adds confirmation to something already well-known. Nevertheless, it forces birthers further into the fringe, which is where they belonged from the beginning.
    It’s sort of an epiphany for me, the realization that birther arguments have become so absurd on the face of it, that they don’t require refutation.

    The birther penchant for concocting endlessly complex ways to explain the obvious reminds me of the seven-year-old who gets caught standing next to the cookie jar with a cookie in his hand. Mom says, “put the cookie back!”

    Little Junior says, “but Ma, I didn’t take the cookie!” No, some flying saucer landed in the back yard and a bunch of little green martians got out. They had come to Planet Earth to look for sugar confections. When they raided the kitchen for the cookies, Junior bravely called the police. When the police showed up, the LGM panicked, dropped the cookies and flew away in the spacecraft. The policeman was so proud of Junior’s quick action in calling the police that he wanted to give Junior a key to the city. Out of his selflessness, Junior asked only that he be given one of the cookies as a token of gratitude.

    According to Junior, that’s how he wound up holding the cookie.

  291. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 7:16 pm #

    kimba: Charo finally came out as full-on birther.

    Again? She was a birther the whole time

  292. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 11, 2011 at 7:22 pm #

    bjphysics: A-ha, we finally have the absolute, irrefutable, un-impeachable (pun intended), un-usurpable (pun intended) proof to frog walk that Terrorist-Coddling, Warmongering, Wall Street-Loving, Socialistic, Godless Muslim Usurperist out of the Whitehouse because:
    .

    Dr. Chiyome Fukino said, ‘“she found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files.”’
    .

    “That’s REALLY significant! Because, if half of his Birth Certificate is handwritten, then that implies changes to the original certificate! This happens in adoptions, or when changes to the original are requested.”

    The bottom portion of the certificate is comprised of signatures with dates. If Obama’s certificate had been amended, then the COLB would by law have to say “ALTERED” which it does not.

    Further, no matter what kind of amendment were made on the certificate, Obama was still born in the United States and therefore there is no grounds for frog-walking the President out of office.

  293. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 11, 2011 at 8:09 pm #

    Robert Clark: We are still left with the fact it is just current *policy* to just release the short form.

    I would not describe the COLB as a “short form”. There’s no consensus definition of what a “short form” is insofar as what information must be present to make a form short or long. In South Carolina the state describes their computer-generated form as a “long form” even though it is pretty much the same content as Hawaii’s COLB. In Hawaii, only one form is issued, and there is no form shorter or longer than the standard form. Therefore I consider it misleading to call the Hawaii certificate a “short form.”

    Further, over 95% of births are reported electronically these days, so there are no physical hospital forms, but rather computer records with about 400 data items (mostly medical information) a few of which comprise the birth certificates states issue.

  294. avatar
    G April 11, 2011 at 8:51 pm #

    kimba: Charo finally came out as full-on birther.

    I think she was actually pasting some other birther’s statement. The writing style of that screed, including the language doesn’t match with her previous posts. I think those are someone else’s words she was sharing here.

  295. avatar
    y_p_w April 11, 2011 at 8:54 pm #


    Further, over 95% of births are reported electronically these days, so there are no physical hospital forms, but rather computer records with about 400 data items (mostly medical information) a few of which comprise the birth certificates states issue.

    I usually defer to your expertise, but having experience in California, I thought that they did it with a fairly short standard paper form. California has a substantial part of the US population and births Were you referring to the US, worldwide, or perhaps something in between?

    Would a typical practice include a combination of electronic data transfer plus a paper form with a subset of the non-signature information?

  296. avatar
    gorefan April 11, 2011 at 8:54 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: but rather computer records with about 400 data items (mostly medical information) a few of which comprise the birth certificates states issue.

    The 1961 birth certificate (based on 1956 standard) has a lot less information.

    Birth Information:
    Name of child
    Sex
    Date of birth

    Place of birth:
    Name of hospital
    Street and number if not in hospital
    City, town, or location of birth
    Inside city limits
    County of birth
    Birth weight
    Multiple birth
    Birth order if not single birth

    Mother information
    Maiden name
    Age
    Birthplace (State or country)
    Residence
    State
    County
    City, town, or location
    Street and number
    Inside city limits
    Is residence on a farm?
    Mother’s mailing address
    Race
    Legitimate

    Father information
    Name
    Age
    Birthplace (State or country)
    Race
    Usual occupation
    Nature of industry

    Pregnancy information
    Pregnancy history:
    Live births, now living
    Live births, now dead
    Born dead(stillborn, fetal death)
    Length of pregnancy (completed weeks)

    Certification information
    Signature of certifier
    Type of attendant
    Date signed
    Date on which given name was added
    Name of registrar adding given name
    Address of certifier
    Signature of registrar
    Registrar
    Date received by registrar
    Date received by local registrar
    Date filed
    Signature of parent or other informant
    Informant

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_04/sr04_008acc.pdf (from Table 1, Contents of Standard Certificate of Live Birth, by year revised)

  297. avatar
    G April 11, 2011 at 8:55 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I would not describe the COLB as a “short form”. There’s no consensus definition of what a “short form” is insofar as what information must be present to make a form short or long. In South Carolina the state describes their computer-generated form as a “long form” even though it is pretty much the same content as Hawaii’s COLB. In Hawaii, only one form is issued, and there is no form shorter or longer than the standard form. Therefore I consider it misleading to call the Hawaii certificate a “short form.”Further, over 95% of births are reported electronically these days, so there are no physical hospital forms, but rather computer records with about 400 data items (mostly medical information) a few of which comprise the birth certificates states issue.

    Good point.

    As HI has only had ONE standard form (the COLB) for a decade now, it should merely be referred to as their CURRENT STANDARD form.

    All this “long form” misleading nonsense should be referred to what those things actually are – DISCONTINUED FORMS.

  298. avatar
    Reality Check April 11, 2011 at 9:05 pm #

    You have to read he, Lucas Smith’s, declaration filed on behalf of Teresa Holy Cao. It is just chock-full of Lucas Daniel crazy including details of his trip to the Congo to find Mokele Mbembe. He, Lucas Smith, is trying hard to outdo the crazy Teresa managed when she filed her own 43 page motion to dismiss filled with Sovereign Citizen garbage.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/52792420/Exhibit-THIRTY-SEVEN-Lucas-Daniel-Smith-04-10-2011-Declaration-Filed-04-11-2011-in-the-Superior-Court-of-the-District-of-Columbia-United-States

  299. avatar
    Keith April 11, 2011 at 9:15 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): We do not know which hospital Gingrinch, Romney, Palin, Huckabee, etc were born in.

    But hasn’t it been established that Palin was born in Canada because of the inexpensive health care?

  300. avatar
    sfjeff April 11, 2011 at 9:18 pm #

    Charo-

    I am somewhat surprised as to your response to Dr. Fukino’s statement.

    To me it comes down to this: Do you believe Dr. Fukino’ is lieing? And if so, why?

    Because either Dr. Fukino is lieing(and others are condoning her lie by staying silent, including the Registrar of Vital Records) or President Obama was born in the United States.

    The rest is really just nit-picking.

    If Dr. Fukino is not lieing, then whether or not Hawaii will release an original birth certificate is rather immaterial.

    if Dr. Fukino is lieing, then there really must be a very big conspiracy- because she could not get away with it without others active or passive participation.

    Is she lieing or is she not?

  301. avatar
    Keith April 11, 2011 at 9:19 pm #

    Robert Clark: I don’t know what hospital they were born in, nor am I a health department official or election official.

    So if you don’t care where they were born, why the focus on Obama? It is equally irrelevant.

  302. avatar
    Keith April 11, 2011 at 9:24 pm #

    Reality Check: I notice Rondeau has buried the Miki Booth article. I wonder if someone tipped her off that the long birth certificate was issued in 2001 and not 2011?

    They are probably sent it back to Lucas to some warranty work.

  303. avatar
    MichaelN April 11, 2011 at 9:44 pm #

    sfjeff:
    Charo-

    I am somewhat surprised as to your response to Dr. Fukino’s statement.

    To me it comes down to this: Do you believe Dr. Fukino’is lieing? And if so, why?

    Because either Dr. Fukino is lieing(and others are condoning her lie by staying silent, including the Registrar of Vital Records) or President Obama was born in the United States.

    The rest is really just nit-picking.

    If Dr. Fukino is not lieing, then whether or not Hawaii will release an original birth certificate is rather immaterial.

    if Dr. Fukino is lieing, then there really must be a very big conspiracy- because she could not get away with it without others active or passive participation.

    Is she lieing or is she not?

    I don’t think the article was ‘buried’, they simply fall off the end as new editorials are posted.

    I don’t think Fukino is lying, it’s just that she has carefully & cunningly crafted her statement as per her usual tactic of delivering deliberately misleading via ambiguity.

    Here’s what may actually be the case ……..

    “SapphireSunday says:
    Monday, April 11, 2011 at 12:12 PM

    Toria, great point! I forgot all about how Lingle claimed that Obama’s records weren’t given any special treatment. They obviously were.

    Whatever documents Fukino saw in that bound book at the HDOH might be nothing more than information (or affidavits) provided to the HDOH in the hope that the information would be accepted and a birth certificate issued–such as a partially completed birth registration that’s pending supplementary proof. Could it be that these documents were NOT accepted as proof of the birth, so no actual birth certificate was ever issued?

    So they keep these documents on file in this book until supplementary evidence establishes beyond a doubt that the “facts” in the documents are true, but perhaps at this point they’ve never been authenticated. The original birth certificate might be a consular record of birth abroad or a Kenyan, Canadian, Indonesian, or other foreign birth certificate. Many say that a child born abroad to US citizen(s) who receives a consular birth record is considered a natural born (or native) citizen. That’s disputed, but it might be enough for Fukino to make the claim.

    So is this is a bound book of pending registrations that were never investigated and found to be true? This may be why their laws (if that’s true) contain no provision for copying and releasing these types of documents to the public.

    The AG disinformation officer said, “Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied.”

    Now since his next (reported) sentence says that Obama could visit the records and look at them, but not copy them, this might be further obfuscation. They changed their law, iirc, about allowing access to records. People can go in person to look but NOT copy/photograph/scan. However, their laws DO allow the HDOH to copy and release copies of documents like long form birth certificates. That’s a fact.

    If that wasn’t what was behind Wisch’s clever parsing–that the VIEWER himself can’t make a copy–then maybe “such records” refers to affidavits and supplementary documents filed with the HDOH but never authenticated.”

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/10/hawaii-official-and-ex-official-lie-to-cover-their-tracks/

  304. avatar
    Northeast Elizabeth April 11, 2011 at 9:50 pm #

    The Hawaii Attorney General is lying. See HSL sections 338-15, 338-18. Anyone with a tangible interest can get a copy of an original vital record.

  305. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 11, 2011 at 9:55 pm #

    Northeast Elizabeth:
    The Hawaii Attorney General is lying.See HSL sections 338-15, 338-18.Anyone with a tangible interest can get a copy of an original vital record.

    a colb is a copy. You don’t have a tangible interest. Even Terri Lakin couldn’t get a long form for his own daughter

  306. avatar
    Reality Check April 11, 2011 at 10:05 pm #

    MichaelN: I don’t think the article was buried’, they simply fall off the end as new editorials are posted.

    This is probably correct. Sharon has been posting like a crazed banshee today. I was able to access the article with a direct link earlier. I just found it odd that it it bumped off the home page so quickly.

  307. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 11, 2011 at 10:13 pm #

    gorefan: The 1961 birth certificate (based on 1956 standard) has a lot less information.

    Great link. The standard certificates by year are also here:

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/usvss.pdf

    That’s interesting reading about the history of vital statistics in the US.

    States often collected more than what was minimally required by the US Standard certificate.

  308. avatar
    y_p_w April 11, 2011 at 10:19 pm #

    Northeast Elizabeth:
    The Hawaii Attorney General is lying.See HSL sections 338-15, 338-18.Anyone with a tangible interest can get a copy of an original vital record.

    I’ve read §338-13. It refers to certified copies and doesn’t state that it must be based on a photocopy of the original. This is the key:

    “(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process **approved by the director of health**. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]”

    The process by which a certified copy of a certificate is made is subject to the discretion of the director of health. If the the current acting director decided that typing would be the way, they could design a new form, buy a bunch of typewriters (yes – they still exist), and (once everything is in place) start issuing typed certified copies instead of their current computer printout COLB.

  309. avatar
    gorefan April 11, 2011 at 10:21 pm #

    MichaelN: Whatever documents Fukino saw in that bound book at the HDOH might be nothing more than information

    Funny, they always ignore the part about signed by the doctor who delivered him.

    “Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest”

    Hey Michael, not sure if you saw this response to your early posts about seals:

    §11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.
    a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape…….part of this section.”
    (b) The official seal of the department of health shall be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify commissions of appointment of deputy directors and notaries public, certificates, and other formal official documents on which the official seal has been customarily used or is appropriate to be used, as the director of health may determine on a case-by-case basis.

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/11-1.pdf

  310. avatar
    gorefan April 11, 2011 at 10:32 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: States often collected more than what was minimally required by the US Standard certificate.

    Here is the 1978 revised standards. What I like about this one is the following statement,

    “The certificate was reformatted by moving the certiflcation statement and registrar information above the parentage information to make it possible to issue short-form certifications by photographic means.”

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_04/sr04_023.pdf

  311. avatar
    Mary Brown April 11, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    Robert, The good doctor did say there was a physicians signture. Check the full interview. I was delivered by a doctor but no longer have what you would call a “long form.” I lost it during a move. I now have what is called a Transcript of Birth from New York State. It is all they send now. It has less information than the President’s.

  312. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 12, 2011 at 12:07 am #

    kimba: Charo finally came out as full-on birther.

    Yeah, I was wondering what was up with that. Last time I interacted with Charo it seemed to be more about concern trolling?

  313. avatar
    MichaelN April 12, 2011 at 2:42 am #

    brygenon:

    1) 28 USC 1739.

    2) 28 USC 1739. .

    3) The requirements for “A certified birth certificate” at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

    1) 28 USC 1739. -
    “shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, IF THERE BE A SEAL, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers……”

    Nothing there that says Hawaii must have a raised seal on a CoLB.

    2) 28 USC 1739. -
    “Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required”

    Nothing there that says Hawaii must have a raised seal on a CoLB.

    It merely states that it is not a condition precedent to admissibility IF it has a seal, IF it is proposed to be admitted as evidence in the court.

    But Obama to too scared to go there, wonder why?

    3) The requirements for “A certified birth certificate” at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

    Doesn’t prove ‘natural born Citizen’, it’s merely evidence required to prove citizenship for issue of a passport.

    Furthermore and more to the point ……….. “or multicolored seal of issuing authority”

    So still a raised seal is NOT REQUIRED.

  314. avatar
    MichaelN April 12, 2011 at 2:44 am #

    CORRECTION TO ITEM 2)

    brygenon:

    1) 28 USC 1739.

    2)Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1).

    3) The requirements for “A certified birth certificate” at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

    1) 28 USC 1739. -
    “shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other State, Territory, or Possession by the attestation of the custodian of such records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, IF THERE BE A SEAL, together with a certificate of a judge of a court of record of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the Governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, Territory, or Possession that the said attestation is in due form and by the proper officers……”

    Nothing there that says Hawaii must have a raised seal on a CoLB.

    2) Federal Rule of Evidence 902(1). -
    “Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required”

    Nothing there that says Hawaii must have a raised seal on a CoLB.

    It merely states that it is not a condition precedent to admissibility IF it has a seal, IF it is proposed to be admitted as evidence in the court.

    But Obama to too scared to go there, wonder why?

    3) The requirements for “A certified birth certificate” at http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html

    Doesn’t prove ‘natural born Citizen’, it’s merely evidence required to prove citizenship for issue of a passport.

    Furthermore and more to the point ……….. “or multicolored seal of issuing authority”

    So still a raised seal is NOT REQUIRED.

  315. avatar
    gorefan April 12, 2011 at 3:04 am #

    MichaelN: Nothing there that says Hawaii must have a raised seal on a CoLB.

    Michael, not sure if you saw this response to your early posts about seals:

    §11-1-2 Seal of the department of health.
    a) The official seal of the department of health shall be circular in shape…….part of this section.”
    (b) The official seal of the department of health shall be embossed near the signature of the director of health to verify commissions of appointment of deputy directors and notaries public, certificates, and other formal official documents on which the official seal has been customarily used or is appropriate to be used, as the director of health may determine on a case-by-case basis.

    http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/11-1.pdf

    See there a reised seal is required to verify certificates.

    Also US Passport requirements:

    “*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.’

  316. avatar
    sfjeff April 12, 2011 at 3:09 am #

    MichaelN says:

    I don’t think Fukino is lying, it’s just that she has carefully & cunningly crafted her statement as per her usual tactic of delivering deliberately misleading via ambiguity.

    Whatever documents Fukino saw in that bound book at the HDOH might be nothing more than information (or affidavits) provided to the HDOH in the hope that the information would be accepted and a birth certificate issued–such as a partially completed birth registration that’s pending supplementary proof. Could it be that these documents were NOT accepted as proof of the birth, so no actual birth certificate was ever issued?

    So they keep these documents on file in this book until supplementary evidence establishes beyond a doubt that the “facts” in the documents are true, but perhaps at this point they’ve never been authenticated. The original birth certificate might be a consular record of birth abroad or a Kenyan, Canadian, Indonesian, or other foreign birth certificate. Many say that a child born abroad to US citizen(s) who receives a consular birth record is considered a natural born (or native) citizen. That’s disputed, but it might be enough for Fukino to make the claim.

    So is this is a bound book of pending registrations that were never investigated and found to be true? This may be why their laws (if that’s true) contain no provision for copying and releasing these types of documents to the public.”

    What horsepucky.

    when you say:
    “I don’t think Fukino is lying, it’s just that she has carefully & cunningly crafted her statement as per her usual tactic of delivering deliberately misleading via ambiguity.:

    you are of course saying she is lieing.

    And then you proceed to lie about what she said.

    No matter what fantasy you try to concoct- Dr. Fukino said this:

    She reviewed the original birth certificate on file.

    Barack Obama was born in Hawaii

    Barack Obama is a natural born citizen

    There is no ambiguity here- nothing misleading here.

    Dr. Fukino is either lieing, or she isn’t.

    If she is not lieing, then Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and no amount of Birther fantasies can spin it otherwise.

  317. avatar
    sfjeff April 12, 2011 at 3:16 am #

    One more thing about Dr. Fukino. I think she has shown tremendous tact in responding to Birthers.

    I have seen Birthers accuse her of all sorts of things- being corrupt, being scared, supporting Obama because she supports native Hawaiians- and you know it not about race but Obama probably supports native hawaiians because you know he is a socialist and blah blah.

    As she pointed out- and has been shown correctly- it doesn’t matter what she says- Birthers will still believe what they want to believe.

    And when the original birth certificate finally is revealed, not one of the die hard birthers will be consider it valid or sufficient.

    They will want evidence from the hospitals and the doctor. And when the doctor turns out to be dead, they will imply darkly that Obama was behind the death.

  318. avatar
    richCares April 12, 2011 at 3:37 am #

    MichaelN says “So still a raised seal is NOT REQUIRED.”
    poor MichaelN, he is unaware that “registrar’s raised, embossed” is a raised seal. He is often wrong yet never admits nor corrects, what do you call such a person?

  319. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 3:47 am #

    Northeast Elizabeth: The Hawaii Attorney General is lying. See HSL sections 338-15, 338-18. Anyone with a tangible interest can get a copy of an original vital record.

    To be more precise the spokesman for the Attorney General’s office Joshua Wisch is making an incorrect statement. The Atty. Gen. does have a responsibility though to come out and correct that misstatement.

    Bob

  320. avatar
    brygenon April 12, 2011 at 3:48 am #

    Correction to MichaelN’s correction:

    MichaelN: CORRECTION TO ITEM 2)

    brygenon:

    1) 28 USC 1739.
    [...']
    IF THERE BE A SEAL,

    And since the office does have a seal — you can see it on Obama’s COLB in the photographs taken by FactCheck.org — a document from them without it fails the requirement.

  321. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 3:54 am #

    Keith: So if you don’t care where they were born, why the focus on Obama? It is equally irrelevant.

    I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.

    Bob

  322. avatar
    sfjeff April 12, 2011 at 4:06 am #

    “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”

    Bob

    So when McCain and Palin were running- did you care that neither of them ever made their birth certificate availible to confirm eligiblity?

    Did you spend time arguing vigorously that unless they did so that no one could confirm that they were eligible?

    Notice you didn’t respond to my earlier post yet either.

  323. avatar
    The Magic M April 12, 2011 at 4:23 am #

    > it’s just that she has carefully & cunningly crafted her statement as per her usual tactic of delivering deliberately misleading via ambiguity

    What is misleading about “he was born in Hawaii”? If there was a “consular record of birth abroad or a Kenyan, Canadian, Indonesian, or other foreign birth certificate”, this wouldn’t make Fukino say he was born in Hawaii.

    It’s the same illogical “reasoning” and deliberate lying as you birfers employ when saying “everyone can get a Hawaiian COLB” leaving out “but not one stating the baby was born in Hawaii”.

  324. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 4:26 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The bottom portion of the certificate is comprised of signatures with dates. If Obama’s certificate had been amended, then the COLB would by law have to say “ALTERED” which it does not.Further, no matter what kind of amendment were made on the certificate, Obama was still born in the United States and therefore there is no grounds for frog-walking the President out of office.

    On another forum I was offering some reasons why Obama might not want to release his original birth certificate. I copied it below. Note that I say most likely Obama was born in Hawaii, but I couldn’t rule out the possibility he wasn’t because his refusal to release the original record is not a rational move to me.
    But what you might find interesting is my second suggested reason why he might not want to release it. It shows there is actually a scenario where alterations would not be reported on the COLB.

    Bob

    =======================================================
    Since this blog post is about “birthers” who judge the issue analytically I should give my opinion on the matter. Here is the list of possibilities as I see them ranked from most likely to least likely based on the information I have so far. Note the second of the possibilities I just discovered today after looking up references.

    1.)The President was indeed born in Hawaii, but he was not born in a hospital, so he does not have a traditional long form birth certificate. If you look at online information of Jimmy Carter you see he was the first President to be born in a hospital. So all Presidents before Carter were born at home. In such cases there would not be a traditional long form birth certificate. At home births still do occur today so it would not be so out of ordinary for this to have been the case for Obama.
    This would of course mean he is eligible to be President. But it would raise a problem for him for the doubters because they would continue to maintain there is no proof he is a natural born citizen.
    The reason I take this as the most likely explanation is because of the evidence released so far that he was born in Hawaii. But still we have his puzzling refusal to release the long form certificate. As I said there is nothing particularly Earth-shattering in the long form and his puzzzling refusal to release it just makes no sense at all. Note this is not a minor issue at this point. I saw on MSNBC with Chris Matthews that as many as 40% (!!) of the country aren’t sure whether or not that Obama was actually born in this country.

    2.)This one I just found out today: on the original long form birth certificate perhaps it did not list Barack Sr. as the father. I had known about amendations of birth certificates but in Hawaii there should be a notation that the birth certificate was amended:

    “§338-16 Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates. (a) Birth certificates registered one year or more after the date of birth, and certificates which have been altered after being filed with the department of health, shall contain the date of the late filing and the date of the alteration and be marked distinctly “late” or “altered”.
    (b) A summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for late filing or the alteration shall be endorsed on the certificates.
    (c) Such evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.
    (d) When an applicant does not submit the minimum documentation required by the rules for late registration or when the state registrar finds reasons to question the validity or adequacy of the certificate or the documentary evidence, the state registrar shall not register the late certificate and shall advise the applicant of the reason for this action.
    The department of health may by rule provide for the dismissal of an application which is not actively prosecuted.
    (e) As used in this section, “late” means one year or more after the date of birth. [L 1949, c 327, §20; RL 1955, §57-19; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-16; am L 1972, c 66, §1(2); am L 1997, c 305, §3]”
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0016.htm

    Obama’s “Certification of Live Birth” showed no such notations so I thought that was the end of that. But I just found out that in Hawaii there is a key case where there would be no notations of a change to the birth certificate and the new one with the changes would be completely taken to replace the old one. This would be the case where evidence would be presented of a change in the actual paternity of the child. See here:

    §338-17.7 Establishment of new certificates of birth, when. (a) The department of health shall establish, in the following circumstances, a new certificate of birth for a person born in this State who already has a birth certificate filed with the department and who is referred to below as the “birth registrant”:
    (1) Upon receipt of an affidavit of paternity, a court order establishing paternity, or a certificate of marriage establishing the marriage of the natural parents to each other, together with a request from the birth registrant, or the birth registrant’s parent or other person having legal custody of the birth registrant, that a new birth certificate be prepared because previously recorded information has been altered pursuant to law;
    (2) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final order, judgment, or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction that determined the nonexistence of a parent and child relationship between a person identified as a parent on the birth certificate on file and the birth registrant;
    (3) Upon receipt of a certified copy of a final adoption decree, or of an abstract of the decree, pursuant to sections 338-20 and 578-14;
    (4) Upon receipt of an affidavit of a physician that the physician has examined the birth registrant and has determined the following:
    (A) The birth registrant’s sex designation was entered incorrectly on the birth registrant’s birth certificate; or
    (B) The birth registrant has had a sex change operation and the sex designation on the birth registrant’s birth certificate is no longer correct; provided that the director of health may further investigate and require additional information that the director deems necessary; or
    (5) Upon request of a law enforcement agency certifying that a new birth certificate showing different information would provide for the safety of the birth registrant; provided that the new birth certificate shall contain information requested by the law enforcement agency, shall be assigned a new number and filed accordingly, and shall not substitute for the birth registrant’s original birth certificate, which shall remain in place.
    (b) When a new certificate of birth is established under this section, it shall be substituted for the original certificate of birth. Thereafter, the original certificate and the evidence supporting the preparation of the new certificate shall be sealed and filed. Such sealed document shall be opened only by an order of a court of record. [L 1973, c 39, §1; am L 1975, c 66, §2(3); am L 1979, c 130, §1 and c 203, §1; am L 1982, c 4, §1; am L 1983, c 65, §1; am L 1984, c 167, §1; am L 1993, c 131, §2]
    Rules of Court
    Adoption, new birth certificate, see HFCR rule 112.
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/hrs0338/hrs_0338-0017_0007.htm

    And in a related scenario where the parents were not originally married but got married later see here:

    §338-21 Children born to parents not married to each other. (a) All children born to parents not married to each other, irrespective of the marriage of either natural parent to another, (1) on the marriage of the natural parents with each other, (2) on the voluntary, written acknowledgments of paternity under oath signed by the natural father and the natural mother, or (3) on establishment of the parent and child relationship under chapter 584, are entitled to the same rights as those born to parents married to each other and shall take the name so stipulated by their parents or, if the parents do not agree on the name, shall take the name specified by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the name that is in the best interests of the child. The original certificate of birth shall contain the name so stipulated. The child or children or the parents thereof may petition the department of health to issue a new original certificate of birth, and not a duplicate of the original certificate that has been amended, altered, or modified, in the new name of the child, and the department shall issue the new original certificate of birth. As used in this section “name” includes the first name, middle name, or last name.
    (b) The evidence upon which the new original certificate is made, and the superseded original certificate shall be sealed and filed and may be opened only upon order of a court of record.
    (c) If the child’s natural parents marry each other and desire to change the child’s name, the child’s name may be changed and a new original certificate of birth prepared.
    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the power of the courts to order the department to prepare new certificates of birth under section 584-23. [L 1949, c 327, §25; RL 1955, §57-24; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; am L 1967, c 6, §2; HRS §338-21; am L 1975, c 66, §2(4); am L 1980, c 153, §5; am L 1983, c 65, §2; am L 1986, c 287, §1; am L 1987, c 100, §2; am L 1988, c 141, §27; am L 1993, c 131, §3]
    Attorney General Opinions
    Department of health’s preparation of a new birth certificate pursuant to paternity orders. Att. Gen. Op. 87-6.
    Case Notes
    Legitimacy or illegitimacy fixed at birth and cannot be changed by subsequent legislation. 3 H. 459; 4 H. 548. Prior to amendment of Act 71, L 1907, children of adulterous intercourse not legitimated by subsequent marriage of parents. 4 H. 292; 17 H. 45, 415, aff’d 210 U.S. 149.
    Child begotten and born out of wedlock even though legitimated by statute on marriage of parents, is not “lawfully begotten child” within meaning of will. 14 H. 271.
    Legitimation by subsequent marriage. 29 H. 258, aff’d 16 F.2d 273.
    Presumption of legitimacy is not conclusive, but rebuttable. 30 H. 574. Evidence to rebut presumption. 49 H. 273, 414 P.2d 925.
    Effect of legitimation on necessity of father’s consent to adoption of child. 52 H. 395, 477 P.2d 780.
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol06_ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0021.htm

    Note that in these scenarios the original birth certificate is sealed only to be opened by court order.

    Remember that Barack Sr. already had a wife and child in Kenya. He may not have originally wanted to be listed on official documents as Obama’s father, or perhaps he even had doubts he was the father.
    In descriptions of Obama’s birth it is said that Ann Dunham and Barack Sr. married in February, 1961, 6 months before Obama was born. But so far the only documents that have been released is of their divorce. No documents showing when they were married have been released. So it is possible they were not married when Obama was born and Barack Sr. did not want to be acknowledged as the father.

    3.)Obama really was born in another country. I consider this the least likely. But as I said it can’t be ruled out by the information released so far because it is possible for a child not born in Hawaii to have a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, as Obama has.
    ==========================================================

  325. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 4:31 am #

    sfjeff: “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”BobSo when McCain and Palin were running- did you care that neither of them ever made their birth certificate availible to confirm eligiblity?Did you spend time arguing vigorously that unless they did so that no one could confirm that they were eligible?Notice you didn’t respond to my earlier post yet either.

    Actually McCain did because there was doubt about his eligibility.
    What was the earlier post?

    Bob

  326. avatar
    MichaelN April 12, 2011 at 4:45 am #

    The Magic M:
    > it’s just that she has carefully & cunningly crafted her statement as per her usual tactic of delivering deliberately misleading via ambiguity

    What is misleading about “he was born in Hawaii”? If there was a “consular record of birth abroad or a Kenyan, Canadian, Indonesian, or other foreign birth certificate”, this wouldn’t make Fukino say he was born in Hawaii.

    It’s the same illogical “reasoning” and deliberate lying as you birfers employ when saying “everyone can get a Hawaiian COLB” leaving out “but not one stating the baby was born in Hawaii”.

    Dr. Chiyome Fukino July 2009:

    “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”

    Then Fukino issued a new statement in which she no longer claims to have seen the original birth certificate instead saying she has seen “the original vital records” and now she says those records, but not the original birth certificate, verify “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”

    Prior to that, in October 2008 Fukino said:

    “I have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”

    Fukino never said that his birth certificate said he was born in Hawaii, nor even what country it was from.

    She’s covering her ass so if the truth comes out, she can honestly say that she never lied.

  327. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 4:47 am #

    Suranis: Not only that, but have the Governor of the state read the forged letter on state TV AND put the letter on its website, Thereby publicly announcing this criminal offense and forgery to the world, and giving evidence for any future prosecution. Homehow I don’t see that happening because I really doubt that the lawyers for that hospital are of the caliber of Orly Taitz.Oh yeah, the White House has not yelled to get that forgery off the Hospital website either.

    They only refused to respond to requests to confirm the letter was written by them. In short they are taking the fifth on the letter.

    Bob

  328. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 5:02 am #

    JoZeppy: Exactly. Which is why it is being treated as the non-issue it is. You seem to be under the assumption that everything relating to the nativity story of the President has to be confirmed, and re-confirmed 5 different ways. The President sent a letter. End of story.

    The problem is if some one asks them did you write the letter to Kapiolani congratulating them on their centennial and acknowledging Obama was born there, the expected response would be something like,”Oh yes Kapiolani is a great hospital and President Obama is proud to have been born there.”

    It should not be, “No comment.”

    Bob

  329. avatar
    MichaelN April 12, 2011 at 5:05 am #

    What is ignored by the pro Obama lot here, is the fact that the founding fathers definitely sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim & the aim to achieve this was to use the term ‘natural born Citizen’ in Article II.

    By virtue of the wise and common sense intent of the framers, it is without any doubt that ‘natural born Citizen’ meant one who is born in the republic, of parents who are Citizens of the republic.

    You know it makes sense and so does Obama, who, if he really believes he is an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’, would completely demolish the ‘birthers’ by producing proof of his NBC status for a measly $10 rather then allow this division perpetuate amongst the people of USA & allow a decorated patriot marine end up in jail.

    Obama is not a NBC, he knows it & you know it ………… he is a fraud and a liar.

    Can anyone here produce an argument of any worth that supports the absurd notion that the founding fathers didn’t seek to establish that only those of the highest possible allegiance imaginable were to be eligible for the office of POTUS?

    “In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, “of great use to Judges,” that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.”
    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

  330. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 12, 2011 at 5:25 am #

    Robert Clark: Actually McCain did because there was doubt about his eligibility.

    No, McCain didn’t. He never released his birth certificate publicly or made a copy available to anyone.

  331. avatar
    Majority Will April 12, 2011 at 5:51 am #

    Expelliarmus: No, McCain didn’t.He never released his birth certificate publicly or made a copy available to anyone.

    Little Bob has made it abundantly clear that he’s more interested in the endless stream of crap spewed from birther propaganda sites than factual information.

    Has anyone demanded to see Palin’s or Biden’s BC?

  332. avatar
    Lupin April 12, 2011 at 5:58 am #

    MichaelN: Can anyone here produce an argument of any worth that supports the absurd notion that the founding fathers didn’t seek to establish that only those of the highest possible allegiance imaginable were to be eligible for the office of POTUS?

    “In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, “of great use to Judges,” that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.”
    http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

    This is rubbish (and I think you know it). Take it from me, a French jurist, that even if you equated Vattel’s French-language terms with that of “natural-born citizen” (there is plenty of room to argue this either way), then Obama would definitely meet that criterion.

    As I have pointed out a zillion times, Vattel is a dead end for birthers.

    You are free to entertain the notion that dual citizens or children born with potential dual citizenships are not NBC under your legal system (Vattel having nothing to do with it), but then you should weigh the ramifications of such a policy that would disqualify millions of Americans.

    But then again that’s probably want you want.

  333. avatar
    Suranis April 12, 2011 at 6:35 am #

    Robert Clark: They only refused to respond to requests to confirm the letter was written by them. In short they are taking the fifth on the letter.

    Bob

    Which means they didn’t bother replying to idiots who were sending them eleventy zillion other “requests” as well, including did Obama REALLY go to college, is Obama really human, etc.

    I hate to stun you, but the White house staff has better things to do than respond to every stupid request by morons and lunatics, especially when the answer is completely obvious. And if I was a white house staffer and I read a request like that it would go straight into the round file in the corner marked “crazy file”

  334. avatar
    Scientist April 12, 2011 at 6:41 am #

    Robert Clark: To be more precise the spokesman for the Attorney General’s office Joshua Wisch is making an incorrect statement. The Atty. Gen. does have a responsibility though to come out and correct that misstatement.

    Mr Wisch’s statement is quite correct and needs no correction. The Hawaii DOH issues only COLBs. The law may not forbid them to photocopy original records, but they don’t do it. There are millions of things that are not forbidden by law that organizations and individuals choose not to do for a whole variety of reasons.

    Now before you give me “Miki Booth’s friend’s daughter” let’s look at the following:

    1. You don’t know that the person posting as Miki Booth is an actual person named Miki Booth. It could be anyone, even Lucas Smith.
    2. You don’t know who Miki Booth’s supposed friend is.
    3. You don’t know that this friend had a daughter in Hawaii.

    Now let’s look at a real person. Terry Lakin. While I don’t think much of him, I have to admit he exists. He had a real daughter while stationed in Hawaii. She has a COLB. If it’s possible to get a long-form from Hawaii, he should get one and show it to the world. Until that happens, Mr Wisch is right and you are wrong.

  335. avatar
    Northland10 April 12, 2011 at 7:19 am #

    MichaelN: every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.”

    Oh the irony…

  336. avatar
    Northland10 April 12, 2011 at 7:26 am #

    MichaelN: Can anyone here produce an argument of any worth that supports the absurd notion that the founding fathers didn’t seek to establish that only those of the highest possible allegiance imaginable were to be eligible for the office of POTUS?

    Can you produce evidence that that supports your absurd notion that the founding fathers did not use the understood definition of NBC as seen in popular writers such as Blackstone? How often was your “highest possible allegiance” and two-citizen theory mentioned in the debates or or in the Federalist Papers?

    Absurdity – changing the definition of a term and not bothering to tell anybody.
    Absurdity – hearing a statement from a former government official and, without evidence, determine that she is lying.

  337. avatar
    Scientist April 12, 2011 at 7:46 am #

    MichaelN: What is ignored by the pro Obama lot here, is the fact that the founding fathers definitely sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim & the aim to achieve this was to use the term natural born Citizen’ in Article II.

    Are you including citoyen Jefferson, lifelong, unfailing defender of France and all things French among the founding fathers? What is your stance regarding the deep financial and personal ties of the Bush family to the Saudi royals?

  338. avatar
    bjphysics April 12, 2011 at 8:08 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The bottom portion of the certificate is comprised of signatures with dates. If Obama’s certificate had been amended, then the COLB would by law have to say “ALTERED” which it does not.Further, no matter what kind of amendment were made on the certificate, Obama was still born in the United States and therefore there is no grounds for frog-walking the President out of office.

    Doc,

    The post at FR is serious; my post referencing that post was in jest. The phrase “Terrorist-Coddling, Warmongering, Wall Street-Loving, Socialistic, Godless Muslim” is direct from the Time magazine cover. I thought the attempt at humor would be obvious when I wrote “we are close to our orgasmic moment of de-blackeny”. No birther would write “de-blackeny”; they might think it but never come right out and say or write it. I hope there is still room here for a little bit of humor.

    BJ the Physicist

  339. avatar
    Suranis April 12, 2011 at 8:12 am #

    Hey, MichealN – IIIII’m IGOOORIIING YOUUUUU! :D

  340. avatar
    Keith April 12, 2011 at 9:23 am #

    Majority Will: Has anyone demanded to see Palin’s or Biden’s BC?

    Of course not. Not only are they both white, but Palin was born in Canada because of the free health care.

  341. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 12, 2011 at 9:23 am #

    Robert Clark: Actually McCain did because there was doubt about his eligibility.What was the earlier post?Bob

    Actually McCain didn’t. There is a story he showed one reporter but the reporter couldn’t make a copy or take pictures. McCain did not show it publicly.

  342. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 12, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    Robert Clark: 3.)Obama really was born in another country. I consider this the least likely. But as I said it can’t be ruled out by the information released so far because it is possible for a child not born in Hawaii to have a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, as Obama has.

    Why do you continue to lie like this? It was not possible. Show us one COLB from someone who was born elsewhere but has a birth certificate from Hawaii that says they were born there since Hawaii became a State. You’re relying on a law that wasn’t even passed until 21 years after Obama was born and only applied if you did it up to a year after the child was born. The certificate still wouldn’t say they were born in Hawaii on it.

  343. avatar
    The Magic M April 12, 2011 at 9:27 am #

    > sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim & the aim to achieve this was to use the term natural born Citizen’ in Article II

    Well then they obviously failed epically, given that the status at birth has probably the least influence or claim on someone.

    Let’s suppose baby Jim is a dual citizen at birth. Let’s further suppose his non-US citizenship, say Latvian, expires by the age of 6 (because he didn’t claim it by then according to Latvian law). Now Latvia has no more legal or moral claim on the child. Yet you assume that by the age of 50, Jim still has “allegiance” towards Latvia or Latvia still has a “claim” on him?
    The same, BTW, also holds if Jim were a naturalized citizen who became naturalized at the age of 4.

    On the other hand, assume Jane is born a US citizen to two US citizen parents, then decides to get a Latvian citizenship at the age of 18, then runs for US president at the age of 50, still a dual citizen.
    Now Latvia *has* a claim on her although she is a natural born citizen even by the stricter birther Vattelist definition.

    So obviously “natural born” is not ony not required to be free from allegiance/claim, it is also not a guarantee to be.

    Well, what follows? That the Founders created a totally useless prerequisite for presidency that can be so easily circumvented?

    Or rather that your whole birther definition of “allegiance”/”sole jurisdiction”/”two parent citizens” is entirely bogus?

    I mean, if I had wanted to keep the presidency so free from “possible foreign influence”, I’d have written something much stricter than just “natural born”. I’d have been significantly more concerned with the *current* status of the person to be president, not his status as an infant.
    If I were concerned about things such as “Christian values”, what would I write in the Constitution? That the president must be a Christian today or that he must have been a Christian at birth or that he must have been a Christian his entire life? What makes most sense?
    Why didn’t the Founders write “born a citizen and not having been a citizen of another country in his entire life”, if you birfers were right?

  344. avatar
    Sef April 12, 2011 at 9:54 am #

    Bobby, boy, about all your reasons why a BC would be sealed, you can be absolutely certain that Dr. Fukino would not have reinserted herself into this discussion if there were anything out of the ordinary of what she found in the bound archive.

  345. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 12, 2011 at 10:04 am #

    Sfjeff correctly said that neither McCain nor Palin ever made their birth certificates available to confirm eligibility.

    At 4:31 AM, a misinformed Robert Clark said “Actually McCain did because there was doubt about his eligibility.”

    The facts are that McCain NEVER made his birth certificate public. He NEVER showed it to the Senate, as Lakin wrongly assumed.

    In fact, he NEVER showed it to any Arizona officials at all.

    McCain’s birth certificate was shown to a single Washington Post reporter, but never made public.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/citizen_mccain.html

    “The McCain campaign has declined to publicly release his birth certificate, but a senior campaign official showed me a copy. Contrary to some Internet rumors that McCain was born outside the Canal Zone, in Colon, the document records his birth in the Coco Solo ‘family hospital.’”

    So many birthers carry these memes — an idea that McCain made his certificate available but Obama did not — until the myth becomes reality in their minds.

    Here is what actually happened. In 2008, there was a question of McCain’s eligibility because he had not been born in the 48 States. The campaign ordered a bi-partisan legal memo by Ted Olson (Republican) and Larry Tribe (Democrat). They concluded that McCain was eligible. They expressly stated that there was no doubt about Obama since he had been born in the State of Hawaii. The US Senate passed a resolution in favor of McCain’s eligibility, and printed the memo in the Congressional Record. The Senate never saw the birth cerficate.

    McCain never made HIS birth certificate public.

    In 2008, there was no doubt about Obama’s eligibility because he had been born in the United States.

    Obama released HIS birth certificate to the public.

    So which one is hiding something?

    And why is Arizona suddenly so concerned about Presidential eligibility?

    Because the President is a Democrat.

    Because they totally neglect the issue for Republicans and examine it only for Democrats.

    The Arizona legislation is just a partisan, hypocritical political witch-hunt.

  346. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 12, 2011 at 10:08 am #

    Here is what Tribe and Olson said”

    “Historical practice confirms that birth on soil that is under the sovereignty of the United States, but not within a State, satisfies the Natural Born Citizen Clause. … And Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961–not long after its admission to the Union on August 21, 1959. We find it inconceivable that Senator Obama would have been ineligible for the Presidency had he been born two years earlier.”

    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/

  347. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 12, 2011 at 10:13 am #

    Vince Treacy: And why is Arizona suddenly so concerned about Presidential eligibility?
    Because the President is a Democrat.
    Because they totally neglect the issue for Republicans and examine it only for Democrats.
    The Arizona legislation is just a partisan, hypocritical political witch-hunt.

    Exactly Vince. If this was ever an issue for Arizona they would have looked into it the first time McCain ran in 2000 before he was beat down by Bush.

  348. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 10:16 am #

    MichaelN: Dr. Chiyome Fukino July 2009:“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”Then Fukino issued a new statement in which she no longer claims to have seen the original birth certificate instead saying she has seen “the original vital records” and now she says those records, but not the original birth certificate, verify “Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.”Prior to that, in October 2008 Fukino said:“I have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”Fukino never said that his birth certificate said he was born in Hawaii, nor even what country it was from.She’s covering her ass so if the truth comes out, she can honestly say that she never lied.

    I’m sorry….do you have a learning diability? She said he was born in Hawaii. She never retracted that statement. She made a second statement responding to additional stupid questions. You do realize the birth certificates are vital records? This is just more idiodic birther parsing of words to try to take very clear statements, and turn them on their heads to mean exactly the opposite of what they are. I’m sorry. This is just beyond silly.

  349. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 12, 2011 at 10:19 am #

    Perhaps it bears repeating that the Framers did in fact express concern about the influence of foreigners, and therefore excluded NATURALIZED citizens from the Presidency. They faced strong rumors that one of the sons of King George might be called on by the Americans to lead the floundering republic. They feared foreign military leaders. So they barred Congress from naturalizing a foreign leader. That is what they did. They never warned against any person who was born as a U.S. citizen.

    This is how Tribe and Olson summarized the issue:

    “Senator McCain’s candidacy for the Presidency is consistent not only with the accepted meaning of “natural born Citizen,” but also with the Framers’ intentions when adopting that language. The Natural Born Citizen Clause was added to the Constitution shortly after John Jay sent a letter to George Washington expressing concern about ‘Foreigners’ attaining the position of Commander in Chief. 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 61 (1911). It goes without saying that the Framers did not intend to exclude a person from the office of the President simply because he or she was born to U.S. citizens serving in the U.S. military outside of the continental United States; Senator McCain is certainly not the hypothetical ‘Foreigner’ who John Jay and George Washington were concerned might usurp the role of Commander in Chief.”

    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/29/olson-and-tribe-argue-that-mccain-is-natural-born/

  350. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 12, 2011 at 10:27 am #

    Hawaii will not issue a COLB to a person born overseas that says the person was born in Hawaii. The COLB will list the correct place of birth.

    Suppose a Hawaiian couple has adopted a Korean infant. The birth certificate was issued by a foreign country and is in the Korean language. It can be a problem in the United States when presented to officials.

    The law allows the couple to secure a COLB, issued by the State of Hawaii, with signature of the certifying official and raised seal, attesting to the child’s date of birth and correct place of birth in Korea.

    It is official, and good for all purposes.

    THAT is why the law has been on the books.

    No one can get a COLB from Hawaii that certifies that a person born overseas was actually born in Hawaii.

  351. avatar
    Majority Will April 12, 2011 at 10:34 am #

    Vince Treacy: The US Senate passed a resolution in favor of McCain’s eligibility, and printed the memo in the Congressional Record. The Senate never saw the birth cerficate.

    Excellent explanation. Thanks!

    I would like to add a minor, but IMO, an important point:

    The US Senate passed a non-binding resolution (S.RES.511) in favor of McCain’s eligibility, and printed the memo in the Congressional Record.

    A non-binding resolution is a written motion adopted by a deliberative body that cannot progress into a law. The substance of the resolution can be anything that can normally be proposed as a motion.

    This type of resolution is often used to express the body’s approval or disapproval of something that they cannot otherwise vote on, due to the matter being handled by another jurisdiction, or being protected by a constitution. An example would be a resolution of support for a nation’s troops in battle, which carries no legal weight, but is adopted for moral support.

    Non-binding resolutions are usually specific simple or concurrent resolutions that are not passed on to the executive branch to be signed in to law. These resolutions differ from pure concurrent resolutions (that are used for various procedural requests such as adjourning sessions) in that they are designed to express formally and document opinions, not initiate a process.

    These resolutions offer a means for elected officials to publicly air the concerns of their constituents and are closely followed by major media outlets. Additionally, these resolutions can be used to state the position of the legislature, showing a preview of how they will vote on future legislation and budget allocations.

    The U.S. House of Representatives passed a non-binding resolution (HRES 224), recognizing March 14, 2009 as National Pi Day.

    (Holland, Joshua (2007-02-15). “It’s Way Too Late for Nonbinding Resolutions on Iraq”. AlterNet. Retrieved 2007-02-17.

    The Associated Press (2007-02-03). “What’s a nonbinding resolution?”. nwsource.com. Retrieved 2007-02-17

    Profita, Hillary (2006-06-16). “Why A Non-Binding Resolution Gets A Lot Of Attention”. cbsnews.com. Retrieved 2007-02-17.

    McCullagh, Declan (March 11, 2009). “National Pi Day? Congress makes it official”. Politics and Law (CNET News). Retrieved 2009-03-14.)

  352. avatar
    Majority Will April 12, 2011 at 10:40 am #

    Will the birther move the goalposts?

    Bet on it.

  353. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 10:53 am #

    Robert Clark: The problem is if some one asks them did you write the letter to Kapiolani congratulating them on their centennial and acknowledging Obama was born there, the expected response would be something like,”Oh yes Kapiolani is a great hospital and President Obama is proud to have been born there.”
    It should not be, “No comment.”
    Bob

    Robert Clark: They only refused to respond to requests to confirm the letter was written by them. In short they are taking the fifth on the letter.
    Bob

    Actually, there is no problem. When you have a bunch of conspiracy fanatics, that continue to hound you with silly questions, you tend to give them the bursh off. It was a letter on White House stationary signed by the President, read aloud at a public ceremony by a public official, and later copied in hospital fund raising literature and on the internet. If the President and his administration, who are pretty tied up doing important things…you know…like running the country, are asked stupid questions, they very well may give you the brush off. Ignoring you is simply the polite way of saying, stop asking stupid questions and wasting everyone’s time. A less polite response:

    “That is a very stupid question, and it’s stupid for you to ask that question.”

    -Newt Gingrich, in response to a reporter who asked whether he wore boxers or briefs

  354. avatar
    obsolete April 12, 2011 at 11:05 am #

    MichaelN and Robert Clark just had another very public cry and outburst. They are in need of another nappy, and they will feel better.

    Fact is, no one has impugned Dr. Fukino’s credibility, and she has been consistent. Her statements, under oath and in interviews, are good enough to have settles the matter for the Speaker of the House.
    And any other rational purpose who does not seek out the “coded” messages in straightforward statements.

  355. avatar
    Joey April 12, 2011 at 11:20 am #

    obsolete:
    MichaelN and Robert Clark just had another very public cry and outburst. They are in need of another nappy, and they will feel better.

    Fact is, no one has impugned Dr. Fukino’s credibility, and she has been consistent. Her statements, under oath and in interviews, are good enough to have settles the matter for the Speaker of the House.
    And any other rational purpose who does not seek out the “coded” messages in straightforward statements.

    And speaking of the Speaker of the House…any committee of the House of Representatives, now with Republican majorities, can subpoena Dr. Fukino to testify under oath with the threat of perjury over her head. Thus far, none have.
    If this issue is the “constitutional crisis” that birthers tell us it is, why is it so low on the agenda of Congress that it hasn’t even warranted a congressional inquiry?

  356. avatar
    J. Edward Tremlett April 12, 2011 at 11:24 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I think some posters here have been well and fully owned or perhaps the better word is pwned. It does seem to have come down to a binary choice: Dr. Fukino is lying or you are.

    BECAUSE IT BEARS REPEATING.

  357. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 12, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    JoZeppy: Actually, there is no problem. When you have a bunch of conspiracy fanatics, that continue to hound you with silly questions, you tend to give them the bursh off. It was a letter on White House stationary signed by the President, read aloud at a public ceremony by a public official, and later copied in hospital fund raising literature and on the internet. If the President and his administration, who are pretty tied up doing important things…you know…like running the country, are asked stupid questions, they very well may give you the brush off. Ignoring you is simply the polite way of saying, stop asking stupid questions and wasting everyone’s time. A less polite response:“That is a very stupid question, and it’s stupid for you to ask that question.”-Newt Gingrich, in response to a reporter who asked whether he wore boxers or briefs

    This would be the equivelent of going to the white house website, reading the executive orders issued and then calling the white house switchboard to ask if the President signed those executive orders and not stopping until you have the President himself tell you he signed them.. or your line gets disconnected for a few hours.

  358. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 12, 2011 at 11:55 am #

    MichaelN argued at at 5:05 am that “What is ignored by the pro Obama lot here, is the fact that the founding fathers definitely sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim & the aim to achieve this was to use the term natural born Citizen’ in Article II.”

    That argument has not been ignored. The framers were concerned about foreign influence, so they excluded naturalized citizens from the Presidency and Vice Presidency.

    The exclusion was for naturalized citizens, no more, no less.

    Obama’s citizenship is based on his birth in the US, subject to its jurisdiction.

    His citizenship is not based on naturalization.

    Therefore the Framers did not intend to exclude him, or anyone similarly situated, from the Presidency, and did not write any such exclusion into the Constitution.

    We base our conclusions on what the Framers acually put in the Constitution, not on what the birthers imagine is in it.

  359. avatar
    sfjeff April 12, 2011 at 11:56 am #

    sfjeff: “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”BobSo when McCain and Palin were running- did you care that neither of them ever made their birth certificate availible to confirm eligiblity?Did you spend time arguing vigorously that unless they did so that no one could confirm that they were eligible?Notice you didn’t respond to my earlier post yet either.

    Bob: “Actually McCain did because there was doubt about his eligibility.”

    As was pointed out McCain didn’t- but besides that you didn’t answer about Palin. If you insist that a Presidential candidate should provide a birth certificate, why of the 4 candidates for President and VP in 2008, did you only care about Obama’s?

    You assumed McCain had released his, but it is easily shown he didnt. You clearly didn’t try to verify Palin or Biden.

    So when you say “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.” why did you only apply this standard for one candidate in 2008?

    What was the earlier post?

  360. avatar
    sfjeff April 12, 2011 at 11:57 am #

    What was the earlier post?

    That was a mistake of mine- I confused Robert with MichealN

  361. avatar
    nc1 April 12, 2011 at 11:58 am #

    obsolete:
    MichaelN and Robert Clark just had another very public cry and outburst. They are in need of another nappy, and they will feel better.

    Fact is, no one has impugned Dr. Fukino’s credibility, and she has been consistent. Her statements, under oath and in interviews, are good enough to have settles the matter for the Speaker of the House.
    And any other rational purpose who does not seek out the “coded” messages in straightforward statements.

    Why did her office (at the time when she was the director of DoH) lie to the public about offer to sell birth index for 1961? AP writter Mark Niesse wrote about this possibility but the DoH refused to sell it and returned the money to the requestor.

    Why is it that DoH would not respond to a trivial request under the UIPA law and confirm that they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama on June 6, 2007?

    It was at Dr. Fukino’s discretion to confirm that registration number 10641 belongs to Obama’s birth registration index – she chose not to answer this UIPA request.

    And finally she mentioned half-typed half hand-written original birth certificate – take a look at Nordyke certificates, they are not half hand-written. Therefore, Dr. Fukino implicitly said that Obama’s original birth certificate did not come from the Kapiolani, contradicting the official birthplace story.

  362. avatar
    nc1 April 12, 2011 at 12:01 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): This would be the equivelent of going to the white house website, reading the executive orders issued and then calling the white house switchboard to ask if the President signed those executive orders and not stopping until you have the President himself tell you he signed them.. or your line gets disconnected for a few hours.

    Excellent, the letter claiming Kapiolani borth is authentic and Dr. Fukino claims that the original birth certificate is half hand-written. It means it is different from Nordyke certificates. Either Obama or Dr. Fukino is lying, which one is it?

  363. avatar
    sfjeff April 12, 2011 at 12:06 pm #

    MichaelN says:

    By virtue of the wise and common sense intent of the framers, it is without any doubt that natural born Citizen’ meant one who is born in the republic, of parents who are Citizens of the republic.

    You know it makes sense and so does Obama, who, if he really believes he is an Article II natural born Citizen’, would completely demolish the birthers’ by producing proof of his NBC status for a measly $10 rather then allow this division perpetuate amongst the people of USA & allow a decorated patriot marine end up in jail.

    Obama is not a NBC, he knows it & you know it ………… he is a fraud and a liar.

    Well Michael- you and about 10 people believe this two citizen nonsense.

    Seriously- did you even go to school in the U.S.? Take a citizenship course? Because those of us who did learned that anyone- even the son of Kenyan- who is born in the United States can aspire to grow up and be President of the United States.

    It is one of the great things about our country- we left behind the European class system which said the Father’s class and status was relevant to the child. Not in America- for everyone except Birthers.

  364. avatar
    sfjeff April 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm #

    “Excellent, the letter claiming Kapiolani borth is authentic and Dr. Fukino claims that the original birth certificate is half hand-written. It means it is different from Nordyke certificates. Either Obama or Dr. Fukino is lying, which one is it?”

    There are other possibilities:

    a) You are mistaken
    b) You are lieing.
    c) You are speculating based upon a confirmation bias

  365. avatar
    nc1 April 12, 2011 at 12:26 pm #

    sfjeff:
    “Excellent, the letter claiming Kapiolani borth is authentic and Dr. Fukino claims that the original birth certificate is half hand-written. It means it is different from Nordyke certificates. Either Obama or Dr. Fukino is lying, which one is it?”

    There are other possibilities:

    a) You are mistaken
    b) You are lieing.
    c) You are speculating based upon a confirmation bias

    You did not refute facts mentioned in my post.

  366. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 12:27 pm #

    MichaelN: What is ignored by the pro Obama lot here, is the fact that the founding fathers definitely sought to protect the office of POTUS from any foreign influence or claim & the aim to achieve this was to use the term natural born Citizen’ in Article II.

    You’re mostly correct on this. It is plainly obvious that the founders were looking to limit who can obtain the office of the president. We are all aware of that, and no one here has ever denied that.

    MichaelN: By virtue of the wise and common sense intent of the framers, it is without any doubt that natural born Citizen’ meant one who is born in the republic, of parents who are Citizens of the republic.

    And from mostly right, you veer off to entirely wrong. It is without any dbout that your definition of natural born citizen has no support in law. There is no controvery over this in the legal community. It is junk law. It’s up there with “there is no law that requires me to pay income tax.” It is just simply 100% incorrect. Saying “it is without any doubt” doesn’t make a false statement true. It simply shines a spot light on your ignorance.

    MichaelN: You know it makes sense and so does Obama, who, if he really believes he is an Article II natural born Citizen’, would completely demolish the birthers’ by producing proof of his NBC status for a measly $10 rather then allow this division perpetuate amongst the people of USA & allow a decorated patriot marine end up in jail.

    I went to law school. I know it is wrong. President Obama tought Constitutional law. He knows you are wrong. He also knows no matter what he forks over, birthers will make something new up. Afterall, he already produced his birth certificate, and the first thing the birthers did was declare it a forgery, despite the Republican governor of Hawaii and her administration confirming he was born in Hawaii. Additionally, your false statements on the law prove that the production of the legal birth certificate is immaterial due to your junk law interpretations of NBC. It is not the President that is perpetuating division. It is the small minority that strive for a more Iranian like system, where only those that are approved by thier clerics can run for office. Oh…and patriot marines follow lawful orders. It is cowards not worthy of the uniform make up excuses (and pvt. Lakin was in the Army, not a marine…but you seem to operate in a fact optional world, so it doesn’t matter).

    MichaelN: Obama is not a NBC, he knows it & you know it ………… he is a fraud and a liar.

    No. He knows he is an NBC. You see, he actually studied the law, and knows that the garbage birthers are spewing is the most insane, unsupported, drivel to come up from the sewer. Everyone who is honest with themselves know he is an NBC. The only frauds are those 3rd rate excuses for attorneys that are peddling these bogus theories, because they should know better…well, Orly probably not. She’s a fraud of an attorney who probably doesn’t know better because she got her JD in the mail to save money on dental malpractice litigation (and if she’s as bad a dentist as an attorney, I’m guessing that’s a lot of malpractice).

    MichaelN: Can anyone here produce an argument of any worth that supports the absurd notion that the founding fathers didn’t seek to establish that only those of the highest possible allegiance imaginable were to be eligible for the office of POTUS?

    You see the problem is that there is no support for your definition of what the “highest possible allegiance imaginable” means. All the case law, and the the entire legal community agrees with us as to the definition of what a NBC is. It is you who need to produce an argument of any worth to support your absurd notion that the founding fathers relied on a misinterpration of a Swiss/Prussian scholar that didn’t exist until 2 centuries after their drafting, rather than relying on the common law understanding of a term that they were all aware of.

    MichaelN: “In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, “of great use to Judges,” that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.”

    Oh the irony….

    I’ll just leave it that it is quaint that a founding father decided it was nice to jot down a few interesting observations about that de Vattel may have had, that don’t have anything to do with citizenship, and just underscores that even de Vattel would have thought we should ignore your absurd interpretations as a matter of good legal interpretive philosophy.

  367. avatar
    gorefan April 12, 2011 at 12:29 pm #

    nc1: And finally she mentioned half-typed half hand-written original birth certificate – take a look at Nordyke certificates, they are not half hand-written. Therefore, Dr. Fukino implicitly said that Obama’s original birth certificate did not come from the Kapiolani, contradicting the official birthplace story.

    What about the part of the birth certificate that is is not on the Nordyke’s BCs is that written or typed? Remember when Dr. Fukino says she saw the original BC, it means she saw the entire thing, not just the parts they copy for the public.

  368. avatar
    Daniel April 12, 2011 at 12:32 pm #

    nc1: You did not refute facts mentioned in my post.

    You did not post facts. You posted speculation arising from conjecture.

  369. avatar
    Bovril April 12, 2011 at 12:33 pm #

    sfjeff: Dr. Fukino claims that the original birth certificate is half hand-written. It means it is different from Nordyke certificates.

    Utter bull, as is traditional from Nancy

    Dr Fukino said the document was half typed and half written,

    Now, here’s the Nordkyke one…

    http://barnhardt.biz/blogimages/NordykeBirthCertificate.jpg

    What pray tell is that….Oh, qu’elle suprise, it’s half typed and half written

    FAIL again.

  370. avatar
    Rickey April 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    MichaelN:

    By virtue of the wise and common sense intent of the framers, it is without any doubt that natural born Citizen’ meant one who is born in the republic, of parents who are Citizens of the republic.

    Oh, there is plenty of doubt. In fact, ever since the two-citizen parent argument appeared, we have been challenging birthers to find just one civics, history or constitutional law textbook which says that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. They have been unable to find one.

    Find one prominent constitutional scholar who supports the two-citizen parent requirement. The best that the birthers have been able to do is the ambulance-chasing DWI attorney, Mario Apuzzo.

    Find one published legal decision which says that a natural-born citizen must have two citizen parents. There is no such decision.

    You know it makes sense and so does Obama, who, if he really believes he is an Article II natural born Citizen’, would completely demolish the birthers’ by producing proof of his NBC status for a measly $10 rather then allow this division perpetuate amongst the people of USA & allow a decorated patriot marine end up in jail.

    More birther nonsense. You know perfectly well that in your eyes Obama cannot prove that he is a NBC by releasing his “long form” birth certificate. The long-form birth certificate says that his father is Barack Hussein Obama, and we know that his father was never a U.S. citizen. So if you ever got to see the long-form birther certificate, you will still claim that he is not eligible to be President.

    BTW, Terry Lakin was not a marine. He was in the Army. And patriots do not disobey lawful orders from their superiors.

  371. avatar
    y_p_w April 12, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    Bovril: Utter bull, as is traditional from Nancy

    Dr Fukino said the document was half typed and half written,

    Now, here’s the Nordkyke one…

    http://barnhardt.biz/blogimages/NordykeBirthCertificate.jpg

    What pray tell is that….Oh, qu’elle suprise, it’s half typed and half written

    FAIL again.

    I don’t think sfjeff is ideologically a birther. Besides that, I wouldn’t call the Nordyke BCs “half typed and half written”. Everything that could be typed is as such. Only the signatures and corresponding signing dates are handwritten.

    I don’t find it all that unusual that a document would be partially filled in with the remainder written. Sometimes documents are partially filled out, and then more information is written in as it becomes known.

  372. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 12:56 pm #

    Three points. 1. If Dr. Fukino’s statement is correct great release the info. The bigger problem in my mind is that this makes Barry a complete psycho-control feak that refused answer to the people which is worse than being a record sealer. 2. Barry’s still ineligible you need two citizen parents to be eligible. 3. The bc isn’t the only information that needs to be public record. Release it all!

  373. avatar
    y_p_w April 12, 2011 at 12:59 pm #

    Rickey:BTW, Terry Lakin was not a marine. He was in the Army. And patriots do not disobey lawful orders from their superiors.

    I thought that the US Marine Corp wouldn’t have any doctors anyways. US Navy doctors would generally serve the needs of Marines personnel.

  374. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 1:01 pm #

    nc1: Why did her office (at the time when she was the director of DoH) lie to the public about offer to sell birth index for 1961? AP writter Mark Niesse wrote about this possibility but the DoH refused to sell it and returned the money to the requestor.

    And oddly, someone did get a copy of it, and put it up on the internets? Perhaps the requestor just messed up the request? Nah! Birthers never screw up requests to government agencies.

    nc1: Why is it that DoH would not respond to a trivial request under the UIPA law and confirm that they issued a copy of birth certificate to Obama on June 6, 2007?

    Perhaps because either you are not entitled to get that information, or they don’t even keep records of that sort? Many possibilities that you continue to ignore.

    nc1: It was at Dr. Fukino’s discretion to confirm that registration number 10641 belongs to Obama’s birth registration index – she chose not to answer this UIPA request.

    She did answer the request. She said under the law, and current policy/rules, they do not release registration numbers. You are confusing a response telling you you are not entitled to that information, to not answering.

    nc1: And finally she mentioned half-typed half hand-written original birth certificate – take a look at Nordyke certificates, they are not half hand-written. Therefore, Dr. Fukino implicitly said that Obama’s original birth certificate did not come from the Kapiolani, contradicting the official birthplace story.

    Only in your paranoid mind. Your mistake is that you assume that everything that you see in the Nordyke certificates is 100% the rule, and everything proceeded in a manner that you, based on nothing but your own prejudices and beliefs, totally devoid of any factual support, thinks it should go by. Those of us in the real world recognize that particularly 50 years ago, in the days of forms, typerwritters, and manual data entry, there is no 100% rule of how things happen. Even beyond that, with a sample of 2, you cannot determine what is the rule, and what is the exception.

    But your mistakes have been pointed out over and over again, and yet you obstinately keep repeating them.

  375. avatar
    Bovril April 12, 2011 at 1:06 pm #

    Michaeln

    A few FACTS about your buddy fecker Lakin

    He was counselled on multiple occassions that his “issue” had neither legality or validity

    He was informed on multiple occassions that his actions, if pusued would lead to his court martial

    He openly defied and disobeyed the lawful orders issued by his commander, a serving Medal of Honor recipient

    He openly, deliberately and defiantly refused explicit orders to deploy…TO KANSAS

    He only got his “concerns” after he was informed he was to be deployed abroad

    Even though he had stated, multple times, in public, that he had no intention of deploying he STILL fraudulently took the pre-deployment leave a DEPLOYING soldier is entitled to.

    His daughter was born in Hawai’i and it was stated, on the record, that he tried to obtain a “long form” for his daughter and was told such a thing is NOT available. So he knioew his entire thesis was full of cack.

    His actions directly led to impaired care for the soldiers he would have deployed with.
    It was so stated, on the record, at his court martial, by the officer who, unlike him never got to put his affairs in order who had to replace him.

    The officer who replaced him had a mass casualty event three days after deploying in Lakins place and stated that his and his teams ability to perform at their best was hindered as he had insufficient time to pre-deploy train and integrate with the medical teams.

    So no, Lakin is anything but a decorated patriot.

  376. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 1:08 pm #

    jleinf: Three points. 1. If Dr. Fukino’s statement is correct great release the info. The bigger problem in my mind is that this makes Barry a complete psycho-control feak that refused answer to the people which is worse than being a record sealer. 2. Barry’s still ineligible you need two citizen parents to be eligible. 3. The bc isn’t the only information that needs to be public record. Release it all!

    Three responses:

    1) He did answer. You just weren’t listening. He has better things to (you know…like run a country in a time of war and recession) than to keep repeating the same things to a bunch of malcontents who refuse to hear the truth from many different sources.

    2) No, you are wrong. There is no support in the law for the 2 parent rule.

    3) No, he doesn’t need to release anything. Get over it. You already got more than you’re entitled to.

  377. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 1:19 pm #

    This is great news I can’t wait to see the long-form and all the other records he has sealed. Once you decide to run for POTUS all past information should be public record. It’s called informed voting.

  378. avatar
    Scientist April 12, 2011 at 1:23 pm #

    jleinf: Once you decide to run for POTUS all past information should be public record. It’s called informed voting.

    What information have previous Presidents or candidates released? What information have the current crop of pretenders released? Are you aware that the AG’s office of Hawaii says you cannot get the so-called long form? Why couldn’t Lakin get one for his daughter?

  379. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 1:25 pm #

    sfjeff:
    What was the earlier post?

    That was a mistake of mine- I confused Robert with MichealN

    I just wanted to point out something this post is a good example of – when an obot on this site makes an error, they generally acknowledge it (whether or not anyone noticed their error). However, I can’t remember the last time that a birther acknowledged being wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, or just plain lying, even when caught red-handed… Why is that?

  380. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 1:30 pm #

    jleinf: This is great news I can’t wait to see the long-form and all the other records he has sealed. Once you decide to run for POTUS all past information should be public record. It’s called informed voting.

    I’m sorry…what exactly has the President sealed? Oh yeah….Nothing. You seem to confuse the fact that you aren’t entitled to certain documents with the President taking some action to “seal” them. And what is this “long-form” you’re talking about. We were discussing the President’s Hawaiian birth certificate, which as of several years ago only came in one form.

    And pay attention to your second sentance there…note even your use of the word “should.” You see, even you don’t use the word “is.” Just like I would have LOVED to see our former President GW Bush’s military and arrest records…however, they were not public records, and I couldn’t see them. Just because you think something “should” be so, doesn’t make it so.

    As for informed voting…the voting happened. It’s been two years. Move on. If you don’t like the amount of information, you, just like everyone else, has the option of not voting for a candidate. However, more Americans than ever before, decided they had enough information, and chose to vote for President Obama. If you don’t like it, try again in 2012.

  381. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 1:38 pm #

    Sorry science guy I wasn’t born yesterday. This whole thing reaks to high heaven. I will never be convinced until all his past has been revealed and If Barry’s clean thats cool with me. All I what is transparency and accountability from my president.

  382. avatar
    Scientist April 12, 2011 at 1:43 pm #

    jleinf: Sorry science guy I wasn’t born yesterday.

    Until I see your original birth certificate, i wiill say you were.

    jleinf: I will never be convinced until all his past has been revealed and If Barry’s clean thats cool with me. All I what is transparency and accountability from my president

    1. What exactly would you like to see?
    2. For which Presidents have you seen this information?

  383. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 1:48 pm #

    Like it or not one thing is certain Barry’s gonna come clean on the hawiian birth info 2012 and we shall see what is soo damaging.

  384. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    jleinf: Sorry science guy I wasn’t born yesterday. This whole thing reaks to high heaven. I will never be convinced until all his past has been revealed and If Barry’s clean thats cool with me. All I what is transparency and accountability from my president.

    I think you could have just stopped with “I will never be convince.” There is nothing the President will do that will ever make you vote for him. It has nothing to do with what he releases. The question is, did the candidate you did vote for release the documents you are requesting? The answer will be no, because no candidate has even released the documents the President has. Have you ever even asked for any other candidate to release the documents you are asking from the President (did you ask President Bush for his arrest records? His military records? Did it stop you from voting for him?)? I’m guessing unless you’ve never in fact voted, the answer will be no.

  385. avatar
    Scientist April 12, 2011 at 1:53 pm #

    jleinf: Like it or not one thing is certain Barry’s gonna come clean on the hawiian birth info 2012 and we shall see what is soo damaging.

    He has already released all that it is possible to release unless Hawaii changes their policies and procedures. What you see is what you get, as the old song says.

  386. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 1:54 pm #

    jleinf: Like it or not one thing is certain Barry’s gonna come clean on the hawiian birth info 2012 and we shall see what is soo damaging.

    He “came clean” a long time ago. Get over it. You’re seen everything you’re going to see, and you’re not going to vote for him anyway.

  387. avatar
    Thrifty April 12, 2011 at 1:57 pm #

    MichaelN: Can anyone here produce an argument of any worth that supports the absurd notion that the founding fathers didn’t seek to establish that only those of the highest possible allegiance imaginable were to be eligible for the office of POTUS?

    They didn’t specifically state this in the Constitution. Your argument is as absurd as anyone who says “Senators and Congressmen should not have limitless opportunities to run for re-election. The Founding Fathers intended legislatures to serve for a limited time then go back home.”

    There’s also the fact that, although the non-citizen status of Barack Obama’s father has always been public knowledge, the election was still certified and he was inaugurated on 1-20-2009. It takes a special kind of stupid to assert that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president based on publicly known information. It would be like me claiming John McCain’s POW past makes him ineligible to be president.

  388. avatar
    Thrifty April 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm #

    I wish I could find it, but there was a Dilbert comic strip where, I think, Ratbert claimed to be developing psychic powers. Dilbert called the Skeptic’s Society to get them to run some tests to debunk Ratbert. The guy from the Skeptic’s Society wouldn’t believe Dilbert was telling the truth when he said his name. He’d said something like “Well if you show me your driver’s license, how will I know it wasn’t forged.” At the end, Dilbert was saying “Okay, I could send in a DNA sample. Okay, yes, maybe that would be useless if I had a clone.”

    I sure wish I knew when that one was printed.

  389. avatar
    Obsolete April 12, 2011 at 2:13 pm #

    Jleinf, I’ll try to help you. Please list:
    A- the documents you want Obama to release
    &
    B- links to those same documents as released by either McCain or Bush.

    Thank you, and I look forward to helping you.

  390. avatar
    Majority Will April 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    jleinf: Sorry science guy I wasn’t born yesterday.

    I doubt that.

    Prove it.

  391. avatar
    Joey April 12, 2011 at 2:19 pm #

    Bovril:
    Michaeln

    A few FACTS about your buddy fecker Lakin

    He was counselled on multiple occassions that his “issue” had neither legality or validity

    He was informed on multiple occassions that his actions, if pusued would lead to his court martial

    He openly defied and disobeyed the lawful orders issued by his commander, a serving Medal of Honor recipient

    He openly, deliberately and defiantly refused explicit orders to deploy…TO KANSAS

    He only got his “concerns” after he was informed he was to be deployed abroad

    Even though he had stated, multple times, in public, that he had no intention of deploying he STILL fraudulently took the pre-deployment leave a DEPLOYING soldier is entitled to.

    His daughter was born in Hawai’i and it was stated, on the record, that he tried to obtain a “long form” for his daughter and was told such a thing is NOT available. So he knioew his entire thesis was full of cack.

    His actions directly led to impaired care for the soldiers he would have deployed with.
    It was so stated, on the record, at his court martial, by the officer who, unlike him never got to put his affairs in order who had to replace him.

    The officer who replaced him had a mass casualty event three days after deploying in Lakins place and stated that his and his teams ability to perform at their best was hindered as he had insufficient time to pre-deploy train and integrate with the medical teams.

    So no, Lakin is anything but a decorated patriot.

    Lieutenant Colonel Lakin in his own words: “I chose the wrong path.”
    I apologize for forcing the US Army to court martial me.
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/lakin-i-chose-the-wrong-path/

  392. avatar
    Obsolete April 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    Robert Clark, will you do me a small favor, and simply acknowledge that you were wrong about McCain having released his birth certificate? It is actually a very common mistake, and you were simply lied to by someone.
    Others have said that birthers never acknowledge an error or correction, and I just want to see if you will step up and be the first to admit an error.
    Again, it is such a common error that even I mistakenly believed it at one time.
    It would mean a lot to me.
    Thanks.

  393. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    Wow this is big news. Dr. F finally steps up to the plate and says Barry birth info has a doctor’s signature. So what the heck took so long? Why couldn’t Neil find anything with a signature. Why the heck doesn’t busy Barry just release it and finish the birthers. I wonder if this statement by an ex offical carries the same weight as the current director’s statement? Still pretty Fishy to me.

  394. avatar
    Thrifty April 12, 2011 at 2:20 pm #

    I for one refuse to believe Barack Obama is eligible until I see the Super Deluxe Birth Certificate on glossy photo paper with raised seal, delivering doctor’s name, hospital of birth, both parents’ names and citizen status at the time of registration, registration number, notice of date filed, horoscope, and special scratch and win panels (get three cherries to win your choice of high end automobiles!)

    Until this document is unsealed, I will oppose the usurper to my dying breath.

  395. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    This is a big day for the libs. Finally a fact that might actually help their cause. Lets just hope it isn’t a little white lie from an ex-offical because she doesn’t have anything to lie about right. It’s not like she has already lied about this in the past right. Maybe it’s just best release the real thing to be sure.

  396. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    Obsolete:
    Robert Clark, will you do me a small favor, and simply acknowledge that you were wrong about McCain having released his birth certificate? It is actually a very common mistake, and you were simply lied to by someone.
    Others have said that birthers never acknowledge an error or correction, and I just want to see if you will step up and be the first to admit an error.
    Again, it is such a common error that even I mistakenly believed it at one time.
    It would mean a lot to me.
    Thanks.

    I was relying on the images I’ve seen to be of his birth certificate out on the internet. There seems to be some doubt that they are valid. So yes McCain has not publicly released his birth certificate.

    Bob Clark

  397. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2011 at 2:32 pm #

    MichaelN: Can anyone here produce an argument of any worth that supports the absurd notion that the founding fathers didn’t seek to establish that only those of the highest possible allegiance imaginable were to be eligible for the office of POTUS?

    1) None of them ever said such a thing
    2) The Constitution doesn’t say such a thing
    3) One of the Framers said the purpose of the natural born citizenship clause was to insure “attachment to the country.”
    4) ANYBODY who was a citizen when the Constitution was ratified qualified including folks who had supported the British in the late war, who didn’t speak English and who were dual citizens of other countries (e.g. Jefferson).

    Now it’s your turn. How about an argument in support of the absurd notion that the Framers intended something they never mentioned.

  398. avatar
    Wile E. April 12, 2011 at 2:33 pm #

    Thrifty:
    I for one refuse to believe Barack Obama is eligible until I see the Super Deluxe Birth Certificate on glossy photo paper with raised seal, delivering doctor’s name, hospital of birth, both parents’ names and citizen status at the time of registration, registration number, notice of date filed, horoscope, and special scratch and win panels (get three cherries to win your choice of high end automobiles!)

    Until this document is unsealed, I will oppose the usurper to my dying breath.

    What?!? No placental scratch ‘n sniff panel?

  399. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2011 at 2:42 pm #

    jleinf: This whole thing reaks [sic] to high heaven.

    If you bathed once in a while, the whole world would smell better.

  400. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 2:44 pm #

    sfjeff:
    sfjeff: “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”BobSo when McCain and Palin were running- did you care that neither of them ever made their birth certificate availible to confirm eligiblity?Did you spend time arguing vigorously that unless they did so that no one could confirm that they were eligible?Notice you didn’t respond to my earlier post yet either.
    Bob: “Actually McCain did because there was doubt about his eligibility.”
    As was pointed out McCain didn’t- but besides that you didn’t answer about Palin. If you insist that a Presidential candidate should provide a birth certificate, why of the 4 candidates for President and VP in 2008, did you only care about Obama’s?
    You assumed McCain had released his, but it is easily shown he didnt. You clearly didn’t try to verify Palin or Biden.
    So when you say “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.” why did you only apply this standard for one candidate in 2008?

    The answer is obvious. It’s because I disliked Obama intensely. I had no particular interest in the others since they were republicans, whom I wasn’t interested in voting for.
    When Obama won the democratic nomination, I voted solely for McCain solely because he was not Obama.

    Bob

  401. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm #

    jleinf: Wow this is big news. Dr. F finally steps up to the plate and says Barry birth info has a doctor’s signature. So what the heck took so long?

    Perhaps she was too busy answer all the other birther questions to get around to it? Now that she’s no longer governor, perhaps she has more time to keep answering the same question a multitude of ways in the vain hope that she can stumble upon the magic combination of words that mean the exact same thing, that the birthers actually want to hear?

    jleinf: Why couldn’t Neil find anything with a signature.

    Who ever said he didn’t?

    jleinf: Why the heck doesn’t busy Barry just release it and finish the birthers.

    Like you said, he’s busy…you know…doing President stuff….like running the country….oh yeah…and he did release the one birth certificate that the state of Hawaii will issue him some 2 years ago.

    jleinf: I wonder if this statement by an ex offical carries the same weight as the current director’s statement? Still pretty Fishy to me.

    Considering every statement made by anyone all point to the President being born in Hawaii, why would anything be fishy?

  402. avatar
    Thrifty April 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm #

    jleinf: Wow this is big news. Dr. F finally steps up to the plate and says Barry birth info has a doctor’s signature. So what the heck took so long? Why couldn’t Neil find anything with a signature. Why the heck doesn’t busy Barry just release it and finish the birthers. I wonder if this statement by an ex offical carries the same weight as the current director’s statement? Still pretty Fishy to me.

    And encapsulated in that paragraph is the reason no number of records would be sufficient. Aside from “OMG FORGERY”, birthers would scream “WHAT TOOK SO LONG???”

  403. avatar
    Rickey April 12, 2011 at 2:45 pm #

    nc1: Excellent,the letter claiming Kapiolani borth is authentic and Dr. Fukino claims that the original birth certificate is half hand-written. It means it is different from Nordyke certificates.Either Obama or Dr. Fukino is lying, which one is it?

    Can we make this a Jeopardy question?

    Answer: Who is nc1?

    I win!

  404. avatar
    JoZeppy April 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    jleinf: This is a big day for the libs. Finally a fact that might actually help their cause. Lets just hope it isn’t a little white lie from an ex-offical because she doesn’t have anything to lie about right. It’s not like she has already lied about this in the past right. Maybe it’s just best release the real thing to be sure.

    And of couse, you have no evidence of her lying. That’s right….birthers don’t need evidence. Afterall, if they actually relied on evidence, then they couldn’t be a birther.

    Just accept you’ve already seen all you’re going to get. The President LOVES birthers. They make the Republicans look so looney all the indpendants will be voting straight ticket Democrats.

  405. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 12, 2011 at 2:48 pm #

    so as we see it. your dislike of Obama makes you see things that aren’t there.

  406. avatar
    Obsolete April 12, 2011 at 2:51 pm #

    Kudos, Robert Clark. I have seen “Obots” post inaccurate info here, and have even been corrected myself on one or three occasions.
    I feel that dialogue is only possible when basic facts can be agreed upon. Opinions, of course, are varied and should be argued.
    Speaking as an Obot, I can say that one of the most frustrating things we deal with is people posting the same inaccurate info over and over again, after having it debunked for them in a very clear way. You don’t seem the type to come here tomorrow and claim that “McCain released his BC” and for that I thank you.

    On a different note, I’m disappointed that people are calling Dr. Fukino’s reputation and honesty in question with absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing on her part. She is a very respected Republican public official, without a hint of scandal in her past. Some people should hang their head in shame.

  407. avatar
    Rickey April 12, 2011 at 2:52 pm #

    jleinf:
    Why couldn’t Neil find anything with a signature.

    Birthers could gain more credibility if they didn’t keep repeating lies.

    Abercrombie never said that he couldn’t find anything with a signature. He couldn’t find anything which he could legally release to the public. Big difference.

    Here’s a hint. Before you make a birther claim, go the source and find out exactly what was said. Don’t simply rely on something which you say on a birther blog.

  408. avatar
    Rickey April 12, 2011 at 2:53 pm #

    Sorry, that should be “which you saw” on a birther blog.

  409. avatar
    Scientist April 12, 2011 at 3:15 pm #

    Robert Clark: The answer is obvious. It’s because I disliked Obama intensely. I had no particular interest in the others since they were republicans, whom I wasn’t interested in voting for.
    When Obama won the democratic nomination, I voted solely for McCain solely because he was not Obama.

    You’re perfectly entitled to dislike Obama or anyone else for any reason and not vote for them. I don’t understand the need for the birther nonsense.

    I will say that if the best case you and others can make against a sitting President is based not on his record in office, but on the same issues you tried against him in 2008 and lost, you won’t like the ooutcome.

  410. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 3:28 pm #

    Sef:
    Bobby, boy, about all your reasons why a BC would be sealed, you can be absolutely certain that Dr. Fukino would not have reinserted herself into this discussion if there were anything out of the ordinary of what she found in the bound archive.

    I presume you were referring to my reasons for saying why Obama might not want to release his original birth records? Note I wrote this before the weekend Fukino interview on MSNBC. When I wrote it there was still some doubt there was a delivering physician. Accepting the validity of Fukion’s statements, it seems unlikely he would not have an officially recognized birth certificate even if born at home, so the first possibility I suggested would appear less likely.
    (Note: as I am aware Fukino did not actually confirm he was born in a hospital, did she? For privacy reasons it would be understandable why she could just say he was delivered by a physician without giving that physicians name. But by the same token she should be able to say he was delivered in a hospital without giving the hospital’s name.)
    About the second possibility that there could be parental change or legitimacy change that would be sealed, for privacy reasons you could well imagine she would not want to give any hint to this at all. In fact since this information would be under seal under Hawaiian law it’s possible she could even be prosecuted for revealing it.
    Also, accepting the validity of her statements, the third possibility also seems unlikely, as I already thought it was, that he was born outside the country.

    Bob

  411. avatar
    Rickey April 12, 2011 at 3:29 pm #

    Robert Clark:
    In descriptions of Obama’s birth it is said that Ann Dunham and Barack Sr. married in February, 1961, 6 months before Obama was born. But so far the only documents that have been released is of their divorce. No documents showing when they were married have been released. So it is possible they were not married when Obama was born and Barack Sr. did not want to be acknowledged as the father.

    Wrong. A couple can’t get a divorce unless they first have gotten married. And why would they go to the trouble of getting a divorce if they were never married?

    But as I said it can’t be ruled out by the information released so far because it is possible for a child not born in Hawaii to have a “Certification of Live Birth” from Hawaii, as Obama has.

    Wrong again. The law which allows Hawaii to issue birth certificates to people not born in Hawaii wasn’t passed until 1982. An in any event, such a birth certificate would not say that the person was born in Honolulu.

    Think this through logically, if you can. If what you claimed were true, it would mean that the State Department could never issue a passport to someone born in Hawaii, because that person would be unable to prove U.S. citizenship. But it is obvious that people born in Hawaii are being issued passports every day. Why would the State Department accept a Hawaii COLB as proof of citizenship if the document could have been obtained by someone who was not born in the U.S.?

    For more than two years we have been challenging birthers to produce one example of a Hawaii COLB which was issued to someone born in another country yet says that the person was born in Hawaii. Not one has ever been produced, because not even one exists.

  412. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 3:47 pm #

    Mr. Clark,

    Since you stipulated to the fact that John McCain never released his BC, I assume that you will admit that many birthers (knowingly or not) made factually incorrect statements regarding this issue. That being the case, is it possible that this is not an isolated incident amongst the birthers, but rather just one example of a myriad of statements made by birthers (ranging from honest mistakes to bald-faced lies) in support of the thesis that President Obama is not a NBC? If what I suggest is true, why should any rational person give any credence to any question raised by the birthers (and therefore based on multiple fallacies)?

  413. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 4:03 pm #

    Slartibartfast:
    Mr. Clark,
    Since you stipulated to the fact that John McCain never released his BC, I assume that you will admit that many birthers (knowingly or not) made factually incorrect statements regarding this issue.That being the case, is it possible that this is not an isolated incident amongst the birthers, but rather just one example of a myriad of statements made by birthers (ranging from honest mistakes to bald-faced lies) in support of the thesis that President Obama is not a NBC?If what I suggest is true, why should any rational person give any credence to any question raised by the birthers (and therefore based on multiple fallacies)?

    Certainly. Some big ones were made by Donald Trump, like taking seriously the recordings of Obama’s relatives in Africa that he was born there.
    On the other hand when an official of the highest law enforcement office in the state of Hawaii makes a factually incorrect statement on the law to support Obama, that should also be a serious concern. That can only serve to undermine the confidence in the public that everything is being handled above board.

    Bob

  414. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 4:09 pm #

    Rickey: Wrong. A couple can’t get a divorce unless they first have gotten married. And why would they go to the trouble of getting a divorce if they were never married?

    I’m aware of that. But the only information that’s been released is the date of the divorce, not the date they were married. So it is possible there were married after Obama was born.

    Bob

  415. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

    Robert Clark: Certainly. Some big ones were made by Donald Trump, like taking seriously the recordings of Obama’s relatives in Africa that he was born there.On the other hand when an official of the highest law enforcement office in the state of Hawaii makes a factually incorrect statement on the law to support Obama, that should also be a serious concern. That can only serve to undermine the confidence in the public that everything is being handled above board.

    If you are referring to Governor Lingle saying that the DOH had confirmed that he was born at Kapiolani, I don’t think that any objective person sees that as anything more malevolent than the Governor (an official not specifically familiar with DOH rules and polices) accidentally conflating the statements made by DOH officials with her personal knowledge that President Obama was born at Kapiolani (she was present when Governor Abercrombie read the president’s letter, so we can reasonably assume she would take this as fact). In order to construe this as something untoward, one must already have engaged a confirmation bias… In other words, this is not a serious concern for anyone who hasn’t already made up their mind against President Obama.

  416. avatar
    sfjeff April 12, 2011 at 4:28 pm #

    “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”So when you say “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.” why did you only apply this standard for one candidate in 2008?

    The answer is obvious. It’s because I disliked Obama intensely. I had no particular interest in the others since they were republicans, whom I wasn’t interested in voting for.
    When Obama won the democratic nomination, I voted solely for McCain solely because he was not Obama.

    Bob

    Bob I appreciate the honesty, but that then contradicts your statement:

    “I would care if they were running for president that they made their birth certificate available to confirm eligibility.”

    Clearly your interest in presidential birth certificates was limited to the candidate you personally disliked.

    Do you not see the problem with using that standard?

    I don’t want to make this a race issue- but you will admit that some people are bound to dislike President Obama simply because he is not white. These people also have a personal- though racial based- dislike for the President.

    Should any President ever be held to different standards simply because of people who personally oppose that President?

    This is why this appears to be a racial issue- because Birthers did not ask for or expect to see the birth certificates for any other 2008 candidates- they only asked to see the one for Barack Obama.

    When a candidate, or President is suddenly being demanded to be held to a new- and higher standard than everyone else, there is every reason to believe it is being done for personal, racial, religious or political reasons, rather than anything having to do with eligiblity.

  417. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 12, 2011 at 4:33 pm #

    Obsolete: “Robert Clark, will you do me a small favor, and simply acknowledge that you were wrong about McCain having released his birth certificate?”

    Bob Clark: “I was relying on the images I’ve seen to be of his birth certificate out on the internet. There seems to be some doubt that they are valid. So yes McCain has not publicly released his birth certificate.”

    Thank you, Obsolete. I, and many others here, have spent a lot of time documenting the myth that McCain released his but Obama did not.

    Now, here is the federal legal definition of birth certificate, as codified in a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):

    http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html

    The definition reads:
    “(3) Birth certificate. – As used in this subsection, the term `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–
    “(A) of–
    “(i) an individual born in the United States; or
    “(ii) an individual born abroad–
    “(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and
    “(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and
    “(B) that–
    “(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or
    “(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”

    The COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.”

    I think the definition is important, because, after all, Obama holds a federal office. Moreover, the State Department listed the public law that enacted this definition, which applies to all federal agencies, in its new regulations. http://www.peterli.us/Content/PDF/USpassportRules.pdf

    Now, can Robert Clark, or any of the other birthers, stipulate that because the COLB issued by Obama is a “birth certificate” within the meaning of the federal legal definition, and that Obama HAS released his “birth certificate,” as defined by federal law?

    This would help resolve the question “Where’s the birth certificate?”

  418. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 12, 2011 at 4:34 pm #

    Robert Clark: I’m aware of that. But the only information that’s been released is the date of the divorce, not the date they were married. So it is possible there were married after Obama was born.

    Bob

    do you not bother to actually research before you post lies?

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729524-3,00.html

    On Feb. 2, 1961, several months after they met, Obama’s parents got married in Maui, according to divorce records. It was a Thursday. At that point, Ann was three months pregnant with Barack Obama II. Friends did not learn of the wedding until afterward. “Nobody was invited,” says Abercrombie. The motivations behind the marriage remain a mystery, even to Obama. “I never probed my mother about the details. Did they decide to get married because she was already pregnant? Or did he propose to her in the traditional, formal way?” Obama wonders. “I suppose, had she not passed away, I would have asked more.”

    Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1729524-3,00.html#ixzz1JLKpHQLS

  419. avatar
    Robert Clark April 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    Slartibartfast: If you are referring to Governor Lingle saying that the DOH had confirmed that he was born at Kapiolani, I don’t think that any objective person sees that as anything more malevolent than the Governor (an official not specifically familiar with DOH rules and polices) accidentally conflating the statements made by DOH officials with her personal knowledge that President Obama was born at Kapiolani (she was present when Governor Abercrombie read the president’s letter, so we can reasonably assume she would take this as fact)…

    I meant in the recent MSNBC story with Fukino where a spokesman for the Attorney Generals office said it was against the LAW to release anything other than the short form birth certificate. No, it’s just current *policy* to only release the short form, a policy that undoubtedly can be changed at any time at the discretion of the director of the health department or of the governor.
    A spokesman for the Attorney General’s office should understand that distinction.

    Bob

  420. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 12, 2011 at 4:48 pm #

    Robert Clark noted that “I was relying on the images I’ve seen to be of his birth certificate out on the internet.”

    I think this is an opportune time to recall that Doc exposed the falsity of those images MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO.

    “The Birth Certificate is a forgery!” by Dr. Conspiracy on February 27, 2009:

    http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/the-birth-certificate-is-a-forgery/

    This is retrievable right here on Doc’s site through his own Search window.

    Good work, Doc!

    This is part of the difficulty in coping with birther arguments. Reliance on those images that show McCain being born at a hospital in Colon City is just not reasonable reliance. The birthers have filled their heads with long discredited information. The true story never seems to catch up with the myth. The birthers keep asking questions that have been answered.

  421. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 4:55 pm #

    Robert Clark: I meant in the recent MSNBC story with Fukino where a spokesman for the Attorney Generals office said it was against the LAW to release anything other than the short form birth certificate. No, it’s just current *policy* to only release the short form, a policy that undoubtedly can be changed at any time at the discretion of the director of the health department or of the governor.A spokesman for the Attorney General’s office should understand that distinction.

    While I would agree that, in general, a spokesman for the AG’s office should understand that nuance, I don’t think that they would necessarily be able to communicate the difference through a reporter, nor do I assume that they would even try. Again, I don’t think that this raises any concerns in the minds of reasonable and objective people (or reasonably objective people).

  422. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2011 at 4:57 pm #

    Vince Treacy: I think this is an opportune time to recall that Doc exposed the falsity of those images MORE THAN TWO YEARS AGO.

    I have been amazed how resistant people are to the arguments in my article, even though they are rather obvious. Many birthers continue to believe that John McCain released his birth certificate even though there is nothing whatever linking McCain to the fake certificate filed in Hollander v McCain.

  423. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2011 at 5:08 pm #

    Robert Clark: But the only information that’s been released is the date of the divorce, not the date they were married. So it is possible there were married after Obama was born.

    The divorce decree lists the date of the marriage as February 2, 1961.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/18130289/Obama-1964-Divorce-Papers-13-Pages-Missing-Pg-11

    I give you fair warning: this ain’t no birther web site; you can’t get away with saying stuff that’s easily disproven.

  424. avatar
    Scientist April 12, 2011 at 5:15 pm #

    Slartibartfast: While I would agree that, in general, a spokesman for the AG’s office should understand that nuance, I don’t think that they would necessarily be able to communicate the difference through a reporter, nor do I assume that they would even try. Again, I don’t think that this raises any concerns in the minds of reasonable and objective people (or reasonably objective people).

    Let me give a for-instance that hit will close to home for Slarty of how government agency policies are as good as laws when you deal with those agencies. When you write an NIH grant, some sections are limited in length. What you write must fit in a box or on no more than 5 pages. Now Congress never voted on those limits. No law prevents an NIH study section from reading the 400 pages you wrote, instead of 5. But do you think they will do that or wiill they place your grant in the reject pile?

  425. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 5:24 pm #

    Scientist: Let me give a for-instance that hit will close to home for Slarty of how government agency policies are as good as laws when you deal with those agencies.When you write an NIH grant, some sections are limited in length.What you write must fit in a box or on no more than 5 pages.Now Congress never voted on those limits.No law prevents an NIH study section from reading the 400 pages you wrote, instead of 5.But do you think they will do that or wiill they place your grant in the reject pile?

    I think that it would be easier to hit the lotto every week for a year than it would be to get such a proposal funded…

  426. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 12, 2011 at 5:30 pm #

    Robert Clark said “a spokesman for the Attorney Generals office said it was against the LAW to release anything other than the short form birth certificate. No, it’s just current *policy* to only release the short form, a policy that undoubtedly can be changed at any time at the discretion of the director of the health department or of the governor.
    “A spokesman for the Attorney General’s office should understand that distinction.”

    Is there such a distinction? Was the spokesman wrong in his interpretation of state law? Since the State Attorney General is the official legally charged with the enforcement of all state laws, the views of that office are given great weight.

    Let’s see what the OFFICIAL state website has to say.
    Source: http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    QUOTES ON
    The State’s public records law, the Uniform Information Practices Act (Modified) (“UIPA”), found at chapter 92F, Hawaii Revised Statutes (“HRS”) requires that all government records be open to public inspection unless access is restricted or closed by law. Government records means information maintained by an agency in written, auditory, visual, electronic, or other physical form, see HRS §92F-3. The UIPA does not require an agency to provide access to government records that state law protects from disclosure, see, HRS §92F-13 (4), nor does it require agencies to respond to all questions asked of the agency.

    Unless a request for DOH records is specific enough to be understood, the request cannot be responded to by the DOH.

    The DOH may not have a record which is responsive to a request. The UIPA does not require an agency to compile or create information to respond to a request.

    State law prohibits the DOH from disclosing any vital statistics records or information contained in such records unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record, or as otherwise allowed by statute or administrative rule. See HRS §338-18. Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b).

    In light of the unprecedented number of requests for information relating to the vital records of President Barack Hussein Obama II, the DOH has reviewed the requirements of UIPA and the confidentiality provisions of HRS Chapter 338.

    Based upon that review, the DOH has determined that the information listed below constitutes all of the publicly available information related to requests for vital statistics records pertaining to President Barack Hussein Obama II, and the only disclosures pertaining to those records that can be made in accordance with Hawaii law. The Department of Health is providing links to copies of the records in the form that they are available to the public.

    1. Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth

    State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.

    Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:

    The law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii is Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 338, which may be accessed on the state legislature website at:

    Information on how to order certified copies of vital records in Hawaii and who is eligible to order vital records in Hawaii, is available on the DOH website at:

    2. Index Data

    Haw. Rev. Stat. §338-18(d) states, “Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public.” Refer to link above for HRS §338-18.

    Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, and type of event is made available to the public. The director, in accordance with HRS §338-18(d), has not authorized any other data to be made available to the public.

    Index data referred to in HRS §338-18 from vital records in the State of Hawaii is available for inspection at the Department of Health’s Office of Health Status Monitoring at 1250 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu. The public will be asked to provide identification and sign in to inspect the names and sex of all births, deaths and marriages that occurred in the state. Data are maintained in bound copies by type of event with names listed alphabetically by last name.
    The index data regarding President Obama is:

    Birth Index
    Obama II, Barack Hussein
    Male

    UNQUOTE, hyperlinks omitted.

    Now, that is what the spokesman for the Attorney General’s office told the reporter. Here is what he said:

    “…Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of ‘vital records,’ including an original ‘record of live birth’ — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “‘It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,’” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    “But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “‘certification of live birth’ form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.”
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics

    The Attorney General and the Department of Health are charged with administering the disclosure laws. Under prevailing American law, the interpretation given by such agencies to the laws they administer are entitled to great weight by any reviewing courts. They have stated the requirements of the law, complete with citations to the statutes, and their conclusions are authoritative.

    Please note, everyone, that the site index data expressly states that “Obama II, Barack Hussein
    Male” is in the state birth records. Since he was born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, he is a natural born citizen eligible for the Presidency.

    I’m sorry, birthers, but Obama was born in the USA and nondisclosure is the law. Buckle up.

  427. avatar
    Expelliarmus April 12, 2011 at 6:35 pm #

    Here’s a link to the full Tribe/Olson analysis mentioned above:
    http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/McCainAnalysis.pdf

  428. avatar
    gorefan April 12, 2011 at 6:50 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The divorce decree lists the date of the marriage as February 2, 1961.

    Shouldn’t their marrage info be available as index data? If I recall somebody, like a miss Tickly had the index data for the marrage.

  429. avatar
    gorefan April 12, 2011 at 6:53 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: The divorce decree lists the date of the marriage as February 2, 1961.

    Never mind the index data would not include the date.

  430. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 7:17 pm #

    Barry the record sealer is such a loser. WTH? he still won’t release his birth certificate and sends some ex-government employee out to say he has a doctor’s signature. Well aint that fricken sweet! Hey Barry, howz about being a real man and release all the Hawaiian data? Come on boy get yer feet wet!

  431. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 12, 2011 at 7:18 pm #

    nice that you just repeat your nonsense over and over again despite being 100% wrong

  432. avatar
    Informer April 12, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

    omg….. let see…u blaming others for your mistakes? Again…Obama wasnt born in Hawaii….unless he is lying himself..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

    BTW,,,,russian KGB found it long time ago…He was born in Kenya…You can say or think whatever you want..your problem….but the truth will be revealed soon… before 2012 elections.

    If ,like you say ,he was born in Hawaii where is his BC? original…not Live bierth .

    Where? wouldnt it be so simple to provide it as it was asked 2 years ago instead of paying lawyers not to show?
    If he has it – show it!
    The problem is that he doesnt have it and thats why you here are totally [expletive deleted Doc.] to believe in fairy story of Obamas goons.

  433. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 7:34 pm #

    If Barry was a leader,man or president for the people he would have come clean long ago. He is not and we will see much more of the BS in the future. No real records will ever see the light of day.

  434. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 12, 2011 at 7:35 pm #

    Informer:
    omg….. let see…u blaming others for your mistakes? Again…Obama wasnt born in Hawaii….unless he is lying himself..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhKuunp8D8&feature=player_embedded

    BTW,,,,russian KGB found it long time ago…He was born in Kenya…You can say or think whatever you want..your problem….but the truth will be revealed soon… before 2012 elections.

    If ,like you say ,he was born in Hawaii where is his BC? original…not Live bierth .

    Where? wouldnt it be so simple to provide it as it was asked 2 years ago instead of paying lawyers not to show?
    If he has it – show it!The problem is that he doesnt have it and thats why you here are totally [expletive deleted Doc.] to believe in fairy story of Obamas goons.

    Do you always make yourself look like an idiot? The creator of that youtube video clearly states that it is an edited video and is satire not Obama actually saying those things but a reediting of video to make him say stuff he didn’t. I could easily take a bunch of video clips of you saying normal things to make them sound like you killed someone

  435. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 12, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    jleinf:
    If Barry was a leader,man or president for the people he would have come clean long ago. He is not and we will see much more of the BS in the future. No real records will ever see the light of day.

    I guess you’re calling every American president a coward for not revealing their own personal records.

  436. avatar
    obsolete April 12, 2011 at 8:05 pm #

    I asked jleinf for a list of documents he wants Obama to release and a link to those as released by other Presidents, and he ignored me. It’s obvious that jleinf is a troll here to lob insults and lies, and should be treated accordingly.

  437. avatar
    G April 12, 2011 at 8:06 pm #

    Robert Clark: The answer is obvious. It’s because I disliked Obama intensely. I had no particular interest in the others since they were republicans, whom I wasn’t interested in voting for.
    When Obama won the democratic nomination, I voted solely for McCain solely because he was not Obama.
    Bob

    And that is really all that birtherism is about, quite frankly.

    Why can’t you folks just be upfront and give an answer like that in the first place? That is all you have to do is openly state that is where you stand. You don’t like Obama. You didn’t vote for him last time and you most likely won’t vote for him under any circumstances next time.

    There. Done. Fully within your right to not like someone and not vote for someone. I have no problem with that at all.

    Why do you birthers feel you have to come up with nonsense like birtherism as a cover for just being upfront and saying that in the first place? All that nonsense does is make you unnecessarily look bad, (gullible at best, lying con artists at worst), because it is so obvious you are grasping at every excuse in the world to explain away your dislike for him, when all you had to do was simply say you disliked him in the first place.

  438. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 8:07 pm #

    No I’m just calling out the “transparent one” in charge today Dr..

  439. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 8:21 pm #

    Hey lets get our facts straight. Barry was a muslim. Barry was a foreigner. Barry won’t come clean on his hospial of birth and doctors signature. This be all true. So Barry could actually be a muslim, foreign exchange president without an American hospital of birth. Wait thats crazy lets check his records. Oyeah, those records aren’t available.

  440. avatar
    G April 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    jleinf: Barry the record sealer is such a loser. WTH? he still won’t release his birth certificate and sends some ex-government employee out to say he has a doctor’s signature. Well aint that fricken sweet! Hey Barry, howz about being a real man and release all the Hawaiian data? Come on boy get yer feet wet!

    Hey stupid troll…keep making yourself look like a liar and fool. All your nonsense was answered. All you are proving is how dumb you are.

    Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.

    “It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,” Fukino said


    Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

    Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.
    But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.

  441. avatar
    Majority Will April 12, 2011 at 8:22 pm #

    G: Why do you birthers feel you have to come up with nonsense like birtherism as a cover for just being upfront and saying that in the first place? All that nonsense does is make you unnecessarily look bad, (gullible at best, lying con artists at worst), because it is so obvious you are grasping at every excuse in the world to explain away your dislike for him, when all you had to do was simply say you disliked him in the first place.

    Many birthers are bigots and cowards.

    Birthers like Bob are despicable for being smart enough to know truth from lies, for showing disrespect for the law and for justifying his double standards and repeated lies with his admitted hatred and bigotry.

    But at least he had the cojones to admit his true motivation. I’ll give him that.

  442. avatar
    G April 12, 2011 at 8:29 pm #

    Robert Clark: On the other hand when an official of the highest law enforcement office in the state of Hawaii makes a factually incorrect statement on the law to support Obama, that should also be a serious concern. That can only serve to undermine the confidence in the public that everything is being handled above board.

    Well, good thing that didn’t actually happen then.

    However, a bunch of angry, biased people trying to twist others words to make the mundane look sinister… that can only serve to undermine confidence in believing anything that biased person says. You just can’t trust someone who just makes up (or parrots) imaginary arguments in order to slander people. Birthers seem to have forgotten the tale of the Little Boy who Cried Wolf…

  443. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 8:32 pm #

    Lets just see all the Hawaiian records and finish this. Come on libs even you realize that he could if he wanted to and don’t say he’s busy.

  444. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 8:33 pm #

    Facts never lie release the records!

  445. avatar
    G April 12, 2011 at 8:39 pm #

    Robert Clark: I meant in the recent MSNBC story with Fukino where a spokesman for the Attorney Generals office said it was against the LAW to release anything other than the short form birth certificate. No, it’s just current *policy* to only release the short form, a policy that undoubtedly can be changed at any time at the discretion of the director of the health department or of the governor.A spokesman for the Attorney General’s office should understand that distinction.Bob

    You should understand how the real world works. In any business or organization, the policies in place dictate how things work. You might not like their policies, but too bad.

    Further, their policies are published and available. The policies you birthers are complaining about have been in place long before Obama started campaigning. So, if you were unaware of those policies, now you know and congrats – you’ve learned something. If you had questions about a possible policy issue – you can ask that agency about it or research it yourself. These things are documented and explained, when inquiries touch upon them.

    You might not agree with the policy or not like it…but again…there’s nothing you can do about it…so too bad. Move on.

    Whining about policies you don’t like get’s you nowhere and just makes you look pathetic and small. You only lose sympathy and make yourself look bad by throwing a whiny tantrum.

  446. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 8:44 pm #

    G: Birthers seem to have forgotten the tale of the Little Boy who Cried Wolf…

    They haven’t forgotten it, they’ve just gotten it backwards – they think that it’s a good example instead of a cautionary tale…

  447. avatar
    G April 12, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    jleinf: Lets just see all the Hawaiian records and finish this. Come on libs even you realize that he could if he wanted to and don’t say he’s busy.

    jleinf: Facts never lie release the records!

    Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.
    “It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,” Fukino said

    Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.

    Trump and other skeptics have questioned why the original birth certificate has not been released.
    But Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.

    “It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.

    But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.

  448. avatar
    Majority Will April 12, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

    G: Whining about policies you don’t like get’s you nowhere and just makes you look pathetic and small. You only lose sympathy and make yourself look bad by throwing a whiny tantrum.

    Bob’s proven he doesn’t care. He admitted his motivation is hatred.

    As with many birthers, anything goes. The end justifies the means.

  449. avatar
    sfjeff April 12, 2011 at 8:49 pm #

    jleinf: jleinf April 12, 2011 at 8:33 pm jleinf(Quote) #
    Facts never lie release the records!

    No but Birthers lie about the Facts.

  450. avatar
    G April 12, 2011 at 8:53 pm #

    jleinf: Hey lets get our facts straight. Barry was a muslim. Barry was a foreigner. Barry won’t come clean on his hospial of birth and doctors signature. This be all true. So Barry could actually be a muslim, foreign exchange president without an American hospital of birth. Wait thats crazy lets check his records. Oyeah, those records aren’t available.

    *yawn*. Little lying bigot troll doesn’t know what a fact is. Big surprise.

    Too bad your entire post is 100% fact free and 100% wrong.

    You come across like a scared and sad little child who’s only retort is to run around calling people “doody-head” and screaming “cooties!”.

    It must be sad running through life seeing pretend “scary muslim bogeymen” behind every corner…

  451. avatar
    jleinf April 12, 2011 at 8:53 pm #

    It’s great that Dr.F has come clean and confirmed Barry has a doctor’s signature on his record I believe her yeah I do she would never lie to protect the president she could get in trouble right? The doctor’s signature is probably from a clinic to confirm vaccinations or other bs to get him “regestered”. Release the fricken records they won’t lie

  452. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 12, 2011 at 8:56 pm #

    jleinf:
    Lets just see all the Hawaiian records and finish this. Come on libs even you realize that he could if he wanted to and don’t say he’s busy.

    He doesn’t have to. Just as no previous president before Obama released their records. No none of this will end. Do you think NASA revealing every single piece of footage from the moon landing ever ended the moan landing conspiracy theorists? The fact is you birthers just make up new lies like saying Obama’s father must be Malcolm X, Jimi Hendrix or whichever other famous black guy you think looks alike. Just as birthers make up crap about his mother, make up the no dual citizenship claim. Your position isn’t based on reality.

  453. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 12, 2011 at 8:58 pm #

    jleinf:
    It’s great that Dr.F has come clean and confirmed Barry has a doctor’s signature on his record I believe her yeah I do she would never lie to protect the president she could get in trouble right? The doctor’s signature is probably from a clinic to confirm vaccinations or other bs to get him “regestered”. Release the fricken records they won’t lie

    So you’re claiming the director of Health under the Previous Republican administration who was working hard to get McCain elected would lie to cover for the opponent? Yeahh that makes a lot of sense… not

  454. avatar
    MichaelN April 12, 2011 at 9:07 pm #

    Thrifty: They didn’t specifically state this in the Constitution.Your argument is as absurd as anyone who says “Senators and Congressmen should not have limitless opportunities to run for re-election.The Founding Fathers intended legislatures to serve for a limited time then go back home.”

    There’s also the fact that, although the non-citizen status of Barack Obama’s father has always been public knowledge, the election was still certified and he was inaugurated on 1-20-2009.It takes a special kind of stupid to assert that Barack Obama is not eligible to be president based on publicly known information.It would be like me claiming John McCain’s POW past makes him ineligible to be president.

    So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?

    THAT is what is absurd!

    You entire argument has it’s basis on this absurdity.

  455. avatar
    Scientist April 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    MichaelN: So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?

    What would they make of a father/son pair of Presidents who had major financial dealings with the Saudi royal family and called a Saudi prince “Bandar Bush”? It’s all OK with you as long as their Dads were US citizens (so far as we know), right?

  456. avatar
    Thrifty April 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm #

    MichaelN: So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?

    THAT is what is absurd!

    You entire argument has it’s basis on this absurdity.

    No, I’m saying that they never said that a president has to be born to two citizen parents, or can never hold dual citizenship. Also, ONE OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS was President AND a citizen of France at the same time

  457. avatar
    Thrifty April 12, 2011 at 9:15 pm #

    MichaelN: So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?

    THAT is what is absurd!

    You entire argument has it’s basis on this absurdity.

    Additionally, please explain why, if the fact of Barack Obama’s father not being a citizen at the time of his birth which President Obama has never denied and has always been publicly known, his election was certified and he was inaugurated on January 20th, 2011.

  458. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 12, 2011 at 9:20 pm #

    MichaelN: So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?

    THAT is what is absurd!

    You entire argument has it’s basis on this absurdity.

    When your straw man arguments are so blatantly obvious they don’t fool anyone… The founders wished to protect the office of POTUS from anyone who wasn’t either born a US citizen or a US citizen when the Constitution was adopted and you’ve failed to provide any evidence that they intended anything different. They certainly didn’t feel the need to protect the office of POTUS from anyone born on US soil (without diplomatic immunity or a hostile army, that is) – sorry, but they overturned Dredd Scott… (which, I believe, is the only SCOTUS case to cite Vattel on the matter of citizenship) Your entire argument shows you to be a liar, an idiot, and a bigot.

  459. avatar
    Sef April 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm #

    jleinf:
    It’s great that Dr.F has come clean and confirmed Barry has a doctor’s signature on his record I believe her yeah I do she would never lie to protect the president she could get in trouble right? The doctor’s signature is probably from a clinic to confirm vaccinations or other bs to get him “regestered”. Release the fricken records they won’t lie

    If they were going to cover up something the original records would also be fixed so no one would ever know. Whatever, you’re screwed.

  460. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 12, 2011 at 9:57 pm #

    jleinf: Lets just see all the Hawaiian records and finish this. Come on libs even you realize that he could if he wanted to and don’t say he’s busy.

    I assume you are including his kindergarten records.

  461. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 12, 2011 at 10:01 pm #

    Bovril: qu’elle suprise

    Now that is funny. Particularly if nc1 is female.

    Reminded me of my student days, when we used to have innocent, silly making up French sentences that had two or even more meanings depending on how you split up words (ravioli, qu’on sonne).

    “C’est quoi, les birthers (naissancistes? naissanceurs?) Des cons qu’on surprise.”
    Translation:
    A short definition of a birther? A scruder who does not notice he’s been screwed.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=scruder
    (the quoted sentence fits the Donald perfectly)

  462. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 12, 2011 at 10:14 pm #

    MichaelN: So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?

    THAT is what is absurd!

    You entire argument has it’s basis on this absurdity.

    What is absurd is believing that someone who practically never met his Kenyan father, who briefly vistited Kenya as an adult and who lost the chance to also have a Kenyan passport when he was 23 (let me remind you Eisenhower was a little bit older when he lost the chance to also get a German passport) would somehow be under Kenyan influence at the age of 47? While someone who took French nationality out of his own free will as an adult, would not be under the French influence – or not enough.

    Wait a minute, it is only absurd for those who do NOT believe in …
    http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H1215-503-009,_Walther_Darr%C3%A9_bei_einer_Kundgebung.jpg&filetimestamp=20100201221133

  463. avatar
    Greg April 12, 2011 at 10:38 pm #

    Can anyone here produce an argument of any worth that supports the absurd notion that the founding fathers didn’t seek to establish that only those of the highest possible allegiance imaginable were to be eligible for the office of POTUS?

    Highest possible allegiance imaginable? No. Obviously not, since even without getting into your misguided interpretations of the clause one can imagine at least one way to ensure greater allegiance.

    The eligibility only requires FOURTEEN YEARS of residence!

    Surely someone who has lived here FIFTEEN years has a greater imaginable allegiance than someone who has lived here FOURTEEN years!

    QED

  464. avatar
    Rickey April 12, 2011 at 10:47 pm #

    jleinf:
    The doctor’s signature is probably from a clinic to confirm vaccinations or other bs to get him “regestered”.

    Obama’s birth was registered four days after he was born. The only vaccination given to newborns is the hepatitis B vaccine. But guess what? The hepatitis B vaccine wasn’t developed until 1981, when Obama was 20 years old.

    Another birther fail.

  465. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 12, 2011 at 10:49 pm #

    “MichaelN: So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?”

    They did care. They excluded naturalized citizens from the Presidency.

    They allowed all natural born citizens to occupy the office of President.

    They showed a lot of wisdom.

    The birthers could learn from them, but I doubt it.

  466. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 12, 2011 at 11:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I assume you are including his kindergarten records.

    Why stop there I want to see how Obama did in the Gerber baby program

  467. avatar
    nc1 April 13, 2011 at 2:50 am #

    Bovril: Utter bull, as is traditional from Nancy

    Dr Fukino said the document was half typed and half written,

    Now, here’s the Nordkyke one…

    http://barnhardt.biz/blogimages/NordykeBirthCertificate.jpg

    What pray tell is that….Oh, qu’elle suprise, it’s half typed and half written

    FAIL again.

    LOL, what is your definition of HALF?

    All fields in the document are typed except signatures and date signed field.

  468. avatar
    MichaelN April 13, 2011 at 3:45 am #

    Vince Treacy:
    “MichaelN: So you say the founding fathers didn’t care about protecting the office of POTUS from any foreign influence and claim?”

    They did care.They excluded naturalized citizens from the Presidency.

    They allowed all natural born citizens to occupy the office of President.

    They showed a lot of wisdom.

    The birthers could learn from them, but I doubt it.

    By your reckoning they only cared a bit, which is crap.

    They either cared about protecting the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence or claim or they didn’t.

    And we all know that they did care.

    Which makes absurd the notion that they would allow those born of dubious allegiance to be eligible for POTUS.

    The parents don’t want their kid to fall in the pool, so they put a fence around the pool but leave the gateway without a gate.

    Yeah sure. lol

  469. avatar
    MichaelN April 13, 2011 at 3:52 am #

    Greg: Highest possible allegiance imaginable? No. Obviously not, since even without getting into your misguided interpretations of the clause one can imagine at least one way to ensure greater allegiance.

    The eligibility only requires FOURTEEN YEARS of residence!

    Surely someone who has lived here FIFTEEN years has a greater imaginable allegiance than someone who has lived here FOURTEEN years!

    QED

    14 years of residency is only ONE of several criterion for eligibility.

    Consider 21 years (age of majority) plus 14 years = 35 years (age of eligibility)

    THAT was the eligibility criteria for age of the POTUS, besides the best security imaginable, being free from ALL foreign influences and claims, a ‘natural born Citizen’ soli & sanguinis.

    The founding fathers either wanted the highest possible allegiance or they didn’t.

    And we all know what the founding fathers wanted.

    You are in denial.

  470. avatar
    nc1 April 13, 2011 at 3:54 am #

    JoZeppy: And oddly, someone did get a copy of it, and put it up on the internets?Perhaps the requestor just messed up the request?Nah!Birthers never screw up requests to government agencies.

    Perhaps because either you are not entitled to get that information, or they don’t even keep records of that sort?Many possibilities that you continue to ignore.

    She did answer the request.She said under the law, and current policy/rules, they do not release registration numbers.You are confusing a response telling you you are not entitled to that information, to not answering.

    Only in your paranoid mind.Your mistake is that you assume that everything that you see in the Nordyke certificates is 100% the rule, and everything proceeded in a manner that you, based on nothing but your own prejudices and beliefs, totally devoid of any factual support, thinks it should go by.Those of us in the real world recognize that particularly 50 years ago, in the days of forms, typerwritters, and manual data entry, there is no 100% rule of how things happen.Even beyond that, with a sample of 2, you cannot determine what is the rule, and what is the exception.

    But your mistakes have been pointed out over and over again, and yet you obstinately keep repeating them.

    Nobody got a copy of the birth index for 1961 even though such possibility was mentioned in Niesse’s article. The same offer was mentioned to Butterdezillion earlier that year
    http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/notice-to-requester-2.pdf

    Please explain to me how is it possible that DoH offered to disclose the birth year (privacy implications) while refusing to release registration number (no privacy implications)? It is upside down logic.

    When actual payment for birth index was sent to them, DoH returned the money. Shortly afterwards they claimed that only 5-year cumulative index can be released to public.

    Dr. Fukino’s DoH in action – lying to the public when applying the “sunshine law”.

    I understand that your definition of half hand-written document is anything you want it to be. There are two documents in the sample – long form certificate (#10637 and #10638) for each of Nordyke twins. Absent Obama’s original document, Nordykes’ ceritifactes are standard that has to be used when judging the format of a birth certificate issued in August 1961.

    If Obama was born in the same hospital day earlier than Nordyke twins it is reasonable to expect the same type of document as Nordykes’ – not a half hand-written document described by Fukino. Keep in mind that Abercrombie mentioned the “actually written” registration.

  471. avatar
    MichaelN April 13, 2011 at 4:00 am #

    Paul Pieniezny: What is absurd is believing that someone who practically never met his Kenyan father, who briefly vistited Kenya as an adult and who lost the chance to also have a Kenyan passport when he was 23 (let me remind you Eisenhower was a little bit older when he lost the chance to also get a German passport) wouldsomehow be under Kenyan influence at the age of 47? While someone who took French nationality out of his own free will as an adult, would not be under the French influence – or not enough.

    Wait a minute, it is only absurd for those who do NOT believe in …
    http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H1215-503-009,_Walther_Darr%C3%A9_bei_einer_Kundgebung.jpg&filetimestamp=20100201221133

    Who cares about Eisenhower.

    You have this dude who has back-ground connections with dodgy criminals the likes of Ayers and Rizco, 20 years listening to the ‘reverend’ (we hate goddamn America), a communist marxist mother, communist marxist grandparents, communist marxist mentor & two ‘we hate the west’ muslim daddies.

    Refuses to place his hand over his heart and salute the USA flag for the national anthem & a wife that ain’t proud of USA.

    Get real!

  472. avatar
    Hawaiiborn April 13, 2011 at 4:20 am #

    MichaelN: 14 years of residency is only ONE of several criterion for eligibility.

    Consider 21 years (age of majority) plus 14 years = 35 years (age of eligibility)

    No where in the Constitution it has been defined that the 14 years must be consecutive.

    that would disqualiy many US military Vets otherwise.

    35 was an arbitrary age that was a consensus by the founding fathers.

    why would you pick 21 btw? 21 has no significance to anyone except to Drunk driving laws.

    Back during our forefathers time, the age of maority (and one was an adult) was close to 16 years of age.

    Pulling more bull out of your rear orifice. The only person in DENIAL is you.

  473. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 13, 2011 at 4:31 am #

    MichaelN: The founding fathers either wanted the highest possible allegiance or they didn’t.

    Did the founders wish to bar Frenchmen like Thomas Jefferson from the presidency or Greeks like Spiro Agnew from the vice-presidency? No. They wanted a reasonable bar that prevented foreign-born princes from getting control of the country. Why? Because such was common practice in Europe at the time. They felt requiring the president to be a natural born citizen sufficient. They also felt (and you have no evidence to the contrary) that anyone born in the US was a natural born citizen (as they are clearly not naturalized citizens – the only other class). Why is it that every position you take disrespects the Founders and the Constitution in some way…

    And we all know what the founding fathers wanted.

    Sorry, what I learned in my American government class was that the founders wanted to exclude foreign-born princes and considered everyone born in the country (well, except for the blacks and Indians…) to be citizens. Doc’s got a whole list of quotes from textbooks that backs this up. Not to mention SCOTUS cases that you are aware of (unless you are so pathetic to have convinced yourself that your lies are true) which clearly set the precedent that President Obama would be a natural born citizen even if his mother were a foreigner. What do you have on your side? What is universally agreed to be the most egregiously bad decision that the SCOTUS has ever made (which even required a Constitutional Amendment to undo…). It is clear that this is settled law – it’s what I learned in my government class and it’s what you would have learned in your civics class had you been paying attention and it’s what President Obama was taught at one of the best law schools in the country. If you claim differently WITHOUT giving an example of a text which shows your point of view (you know, something that some child or law student in the US might have used to learn about the Constitution…) then you will be proving yourself to be nothing but a pathetic liar – and since you have no texts to cite and apparently no ability to drop your quixotic quest to unConstitutionally overthrow the legitimate POTUS, I’m guessing that is exactly what you will do.

    You are in denial.

  474. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 13, 2011 at 4:38 am #

    MichaelN: You are in denial.

    Michael, you may have the worst case of denial that I’ve ever seen (although there are probably other birthers who are your better in this regard) – endlessly arguing long-debunked points and refusing to acknowledge even the most insignificant of the mighty array of facts showing you to be nothing but a bald-faced liar trying to sell disgusting propaganda. You should be ashamed of yourself – you’ve shown yourself to be both a poor excuse for an American and a poor excuse for a human being.

  475. avatar
    The Magic M April 13, 2011 at 4:42 am #

    > not a half hand-written document described by Fukino

    So now you’re moving the goalposts again, claiming that “half-written” cannot be true because only 30% of the BC is handwritten? Splitting hairs can only go as far as down to the Planck length, you know?

    > Consider 21 years (age of majority) plus 14 years = 35 years (age of eligibility)

    However the Constitution does not say “14 years of consecutive residence” or “14 years of (consecutive) residence after the age of 21″.
    Besides, isn’t it you birthers who claim Obama can’t be a real American because he grew up in Indonesia (in part) under “Muslim influence”? So obviously those 14 years of residence don’t mean squat when it comes to allegiance, do they?

    > besides the best security imaginable, being free from ALL foreign influences and claims, a natural born Citizen’ soli & sanguinis.

    You continue to ignore my previous example of someone who applies to your bogus NBC definition, yet becomes a dual citizen *after* his birth and continues to hold that dual citizenship. That obviously creates a “foreign claim” (because, for example, Turkey or North Korea would care little if their citizens were born citizens or naturalized later when it comes to executing their “claim” on them) despite the Founders’ alleged “best security imaginable”.
    So in your birther world, you could have a US president who has been a (dual) Iranian citizen for 49 of the 50 years of his life and *still is one* during his presidency!
    (Of course this is also possible in the real world, it just shows your argument that you only need two citizen parents to be free from foreign influence is simply absurd.)

    Consequently, if the Founders had really intended what you claim, were they stupid that they didn’t put “no dual citizens” into the Constitution and cared only about the status at birth?
    See, there’s another reason to call you “birthers”. You somehow believe “allegiance” and “claim” arise through birth alone and anything the person does afterwards has no significance. FAIL AGAIN.

  476. avatar
    Bovril April 13, 2011 at 6:06 am #

    nc1: LOL, what is your definition of HALF?All fields in the document are typed except signatures and date signed field.

    Not even a good try Nancy dear, do attempt to work a little bit harder.

    Document has typed and wtitten sections, you FAIL….again.

  477. avatar
    obsolete April 13, 2011 at 8:32 am #

    MichaelN: They either cared about protecting the office of POTUS from ANY foreign influence or claim or they didn’t.

    Then why were they OK with someone becoming President who lived for most of their lives outside of the U.S.? Why wasn’t it set that you had to be 35 years old and have resided in the U.S. for 35 years? (or 34?)

    That would have reduced the level of foreign influence, wouldn’t it? Clearly they were OK with some level of “foreign influence”.

  478. avatar
    Greg April 13, 2011 at 8:44 am #

    MichaelN: 14 years of residency is only ONE of several criterion for eligibility.

    Consider 21 years (age of majority) plus 14 years = 35 years (age of eligibility)

    Consider that 35 years of residency within the US = 35 years.

    That would be a higher level of allegiance than merely 14 years.

    35 > 14

    THAT was the eligibility criteria for age of the POTUS, besides the best security imaginable, being free from ALL foreign influences and claims, a natural born Citizen’ soli & sanguinis.

    Not ALL foreign influences.

    They allowed someone to live abroad, AS YOU ADMIT, for as much as 21 YEARS!

    21 > 0

    The founding fathers either wanted the highest possible allegiance or they didn’t.

    Well, duh.

    And, it is obvious that they didn’t want the highest possible allegiance.

    Since they allowed people to live abroad!

    And we all know what the founding fathers wanted.

    You are in denial.

    You are the one who is arguing that someone born here, immediately moves abroad and lives abroad for 60 years, moves back and spends 14 years here is as free of foreign influence as someone who has never lived abroad and has lived in the US for 74 years.

    The Founders were obviously okay with some foreign influence.
    You are clearly in denial.

    QED.

  479. avatar
    Suranis April 13, 2011 at 9:29 am #

    Slartibartfast: Michael, you may have the worst case of denial that I’ve ever seen (although there are probably other birthers who are your better in this regard) – endlessly arguing long-debunked points and refusing to acknowledge even the most insignificant of the mighty array of facts showing you to be nothing but a bald-faced liar trying to sell disgusting propaganda.You should be ashamed of yourself – you’ve shown yourself to be both a poor excuse for an American and a poor excuse for a human being.

    He isn’t an American actually. He’s actually Australian, living in Australia. Which kind of gives his diatribes an additional sense of irony.

    And yeah, full disclosure, I’m Irish, living in Ireland.

  480. avatar
    Paul Pieniezny April 13, 2011 at 9:59 am #

    MichaelN: Who cares about Eisenhower.

    You know how there is that little principle both in English common law and Code Napoleon (he stole it from the English, like the juries) called “precedent”?

    Tell me why Eisenhower should get a pass and Obama should not. As for your silliness about Obama’s history with Ayers and considering him both a radical Christian and a terrorist Muslim, consider this:

    1) Eisenhower not only did not have a birthday certificate until his campaign, he did not even have a baptismal record until he was in the White House

    2) like Hoover, Jefferson, and then some he did not reside in the USA for the preceding 14 years

    3) it is clear now that durimng the War in Britain, he asked his acting commander for permission to divorce his wife in the US and marry his English+Irish chauffeur. If performed in Britain, that marriage would have given him British citizenship – which is probably why pertmission was refused.

    4) at the end of his life, Ike went pacifist again (soemthing remained of the peculiar religion his parents had been practising, it seems) and denounced the industrial military complex.

    There is only one reason why Eisenhower gets a pass and Obama does not and we all know what it is.

    MichaelN:
    Get real!

    I wonder whether irony meters implode instead of exploding, South of the Equator. I will have to ask my nephew.

    As for you, Michael, your arguments are still rorting, shonky and earbashing bowls of rice devoid of deadset

  481. avatar
    bjphysics April 13, 2011 at 10:17 am #

    MichaelN: 14 years of residency is only ONE of several criterion for eligibility.Consider 21 years (age of majority) plus 14 years = 35 years (age of eligibility)THAT was the eligibility criteria for age of the POTUS, besides the best security imaginable, being free from ALL foreign influences and claims, a natural born Citizen’ soli & sanguinis.The founding fathers either wanted the highest possible allegiance or they didn’t.And we all know what the founding fathers wanted.You are in denial.

    Is it your contention that for a person to be a natural born Citizen both parents must be citizens prior to that person’s birth and the person must be born on U.S. soil? Since this definition is not in the U.S. Constitution it can only be defined by Congress or Judicial rulings. Definitions extracted from your reading of extralegal materials do not count, only the law counts. Has Congress ever passed a law defining any circumstances under which a person is a “natural born Citizen”? The answer is yes and here is one such example from the Second Session of the First Congress, the Naturalization Act of 1790 which states, in part:

    “the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”.

    So much for the bogus jus soli requirement; by the way the Naturalization Act of 1790 was signed into law by President George Washington.

  482. avatar
    JoZeppy April 13, 2011 at 10:57 am #

    nc1: Nobody got a copy of the birth index for 1961 even though such possibility was mentioned in Niesse’s article. The same offer was mentioned to Butterdezillion earlier that year
    http://butterdezillion.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/notice-to-requester-2.pdf
    Please explain to me how is it possible that DoH offered to disclose the birth year (privacy implications) while refusing to release registration number (no privacy implications)? It is upside down logic.
    When actual payment for birth index was sent to them, DoH returned the money. Shortly afterwards they claimed that only 5-year cumulative index can be released to public.
    Dr. Fukino’s DoH in action – lying to the public when applying the “sunshine law”.

    It is readily obvious that someone mis-spoke when said the index was available by year, and it is only available by a 5 year period. Point is, the index is available for purchase, is not not? Considering the garbage you spew here, you are hardly one to throw the label of “lying.” As it turns out, since the index is produced in a 5 year span, the year of birth is not being disclosed, and everything fits in perfectly. Seems very logical to me, now that you have cleared it up that a single year index is not available. Logical and consistent with the statute.

    nc1: I understand that your definition of half hand-written document is anything you want it to be. There are two documents in the sample – long form certificate (#10637 and #10638) for each of Nordyke twins. Absent Obama’s original document, Nordykes’ ceritifactes are standard that has to be used when judging the format of a birth certificate issued in August 1961.

    Considering I doubt the phrase was intended to a scientific measure of exactly 50% of the text, I would say it is very subjective, and rather meaningless, short of there being little or no hand writing. And I’m sorry, you cannot treat what is for all intents and purposes a single event as “the standard used when judging the format of a birth certificate issued in August 1961.” Only an utter idiot would consider it to be indictive of anything. You cannot a single sample “the standard” to judge anything. Just like in statistics, the smaller the sample size, the less likely the results are going to have any meaning. There were over 17,500 babies born in Hawaii in 1961, and you’re going to make a sample of 2, .0001% of the births that year, to be the standard to compare all others to. Do you even remotely recognize how abjectly stupid that it?

    nc1: If Obama was born in the same hospital day earlier than Nordyke twins it is reasonable to expect the same type of document as Nordykes’ – not a half hand-written document described by Fukino. Keep in mind that Abercrombie mentioned the “actually written” registration.

    Considering the subject nature of what she said, I see no inconsistency between “half hand written” and the Nordyke’s certificates. There is a good deal of handwriting on the document. And what about his use of the words “written down” (you may want to stop using quotes around “actually written” as he did not use those two words together. He said, “it actually exists in the achieves, written down.”)? It’s this stupid parsing of words to make clear statements mean either the exact opposite of their plain meaning or some nefarious other “hidden meaning” that makes birthers laughable. He said it’s in the archieves, written down. Just like “half written” is not a scientific measure, the use of written down in normal conversation is not exclusive of document containing typing. For the love of God, who the hell thinks like this in their normal conversations?

  483. avatar
    JoZeppy April 13, 2011 at 11:09 am #

    MichaelN: 14 years of residency is only ONE of several criterion for eligibility.
    Consider 21 years (age of majority) plus 14 years = 35 years (age of eligibility)

    And this bizzare numerology is supposed to mean what exactly?

    MichaelN: THAT was the eligibility criteria for age of the POTUS, besides the best security imaginable, being free from ALL foreign influences and claims, a natural born Citizen’ soli & sanguinis.

    Except for the minor detail that “natural born citizen” has never included jus sanguinis.

    MichaelN: The founding fathers either wanted the highest possible allegiance or they didn’t.

    Which is why they required the president to be a “natural born citizen.” A phrase they were all very familiar with due to its long history in the common law.

    MichaelN: And we all know what the founding fathers wanted.

    Well, apparently everyone but you, Mario, and Orly.

    MichaelN: You are in denial.

    Yes, it we that are in denial. And by “we” I mean the entire US Supreme Court, every federal judge, 99.99% of the legal community, the vast majority of Congress, every civic books published since the late 19th century, and majority of the population of the United States. Yup….everyone else but the hand full of conspiracy nutes are in denial.

  484. avatar
    JoZeppy April 13, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    MichaelN: Who cares about Eisenhower.You have this dude who has back-ground connections with dodgy criminals the likes of Ayers and Rizco, 20 years listening to the reverend’ (we hate goddamn America), a communist marxist mother, communist marxist grandparents, communist marxist mentor & two we hate the west’ muslim daddies.Refuses to place his hand over his heart and salute the USA flag for the national anthem & a wife that ain’t proud of USA.Get real!

    Thank you for yet another fact free post. We, in the reality based community enjoy an occasional fictional rant. At least they’re a little cleaner than the soft core spy novels of Mr. Lucas Smith.

  485. avatar
    The Magic M April 13, 2011 at 11:14 am #

    > For the love of God, who the hell thinks like this in their normal conversations?

    Obviously people who are deeply paranoid and hardly have any spoken conversation at all, filled with fear anything they say could be interpreted as an agreement to “shoot me right here on the spot”.

    OTOH, people like nc1 have already shown that their dissection of words and phrases to discover “the true meaning” is open bigotry if it comes from a person who has no problem with openly lying and distorting facts.

    Let’s make a thought experiment, nc1, shall we?

    Suppose tomorrow the head of the Hawaiian DoH issues a statement “Barack Obama jr., President of the United States, was born in Hawaii at Kapiolani Hospital, delivered by Dr. Snook Snoogens, witnessed by nurse Sally Soonbuttom, as the child of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama sr.”.
    What would you parse into this statement that still leaves something to be desired? Would that satisfy you? Or would you complain the statement does not include the birth registration number and the name of the ambulance driver who drove Ms. Dunham to Kapiolani?

  486. avatar
    The Magic M April 13, 2011 at 11:25 am #

    > They allowed someone to live abroad, AS YOU ADMIT, for as much as 21 YEARS!

    Actually, they allowed someone to live abroad for *at least* 21 years.
    With only 14 years of residence required, someone could become president at the age of 84, having lived the past 70 years (!) under some ebil Marksist Mooslim gubnment in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
    Or, splice it differently, lived from right after US birth to the age of 28, then again from 42 to 84 in that hypothetical evil country.
    So in all periods of life where some kind of cultural imprint could be effected (childhood, adolescence, studying and old age) that person would have “lived under foreign influence”, possibly attended propaganda schools, worked in terror camps – all seemingly fine with the Founders.

    And there goes the non-argument of “the Founders wanted X, so they did intend Y to mean Z” when neither X is true nor “Y means Z” is.

  487. avatar
    Robert Clark April 13, 2011 at 11:42 am #

    Vince Treacy: 1. Birth Certificate or Certificate of Live Birth
    State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.
    Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:
    The law that governs vital records in the State of Hawaii is Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 338, which may be accessed on the state legislature website at:

    The state LAW still does not restrict access to the PERSON NAMED on the birth certificate to all of their birth records according to that portion of the law I quoted.
    It is only current POLICY that what is normally sent out is just the short form when requesting a birth certificate. Note it wouldn’t make sense to NEVER send out more detailed information because many people need the more detailed information when doing genealogy research. For instance the more detailed information on the long form would be your mother’s and father’s address, the birth hospital, and birth doctor. You could imagine for example knowing the mother’s or father’s address or grandmother’s or grandfather’s address might help you find other members of your family, especially if you were now living in a different city.
    Also, knowing your own birth hospital and doctor would help you track down important medical information you might need. So it would be unimaginable that you would have a situation that state law would make no provision for getting more detailed information about YOURSELF.
    There is also the fact that when Gov. Abercrombie said he could not release any more information about Obama’s birth without Obama’s consent he was citing what he was told by the Attorney General. So it would not make sense that now the law is that even Obama himself could not release this information:

    January 29, 2011
    APNewsBreak: Hawaii won’t release Obama birth info.
    Mark Niesse
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2011/Jan/29/apnewsbreak__hawaii_won_t_release_obama_birth_info.html

    Bob

  488. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 13, 2011 at 11:54 am #

    Robert Clark: So it would not make sense that now the law is that even Obama himself could not release this information:

    So either:

    1. President Obama is ignoring the birthers

    2. President Obama is playing (some might say pwning) the birthers in order to use them to discredit the Republicans

    Since there is absolutely nothing wrong with either course of action (I prefer #2 – which describes the birthers to a ‘T’…) it comes down to the birthers whining that the president is either ignoring them or being mean to them (by using their stupidity against his political opponents – in either case, it is far better treatment than any birther deserves.

  489. avatar
    Scientist April 13, 2011 at 12:11 pm #

    Robert Clark: The state LAW still does not restrict access to the PERSON NAMED on the birth certificate to all of their birth records according to that portion of the law I quoted.
    It is only current POLICY that what is normally sent out is just the short form when requesting a birth certificate. Note it wouldn’t make sense to NEVER send out more detailed information because many people need the more detailed information when doing genealogy research. For instance the more detailed information on the long form would be your mother’s and father’s address, the birth hospital, and birth doctor. You could imagine for example knowing the mother’s or father’s address or grandmother’s or grandfather’s address might help you find other members of your family, especially if you were now living in a different city.

    An interested party can get that information. Mr Wisch told you how to do it-You go the the DOH and look at your file. I’m sure you can bring pen and pencil with you to write down the information. They just won’t issue it in the form of a photocopy or certificate, that’s all.

  490. avatar
    Majority Will April 13, 2011 at 12:22 pm #

    “So it would be unimaginable that you would have a situation that state law would make no provision for getting more detailed information about YOURSELF.”

    So, in a nutshell, private details on a birth certificate are specifically meant for the person named on the certificate.

    It’s private and personal information. Lunatic birthers, political enemies and the public in general have absolutely no right to private and personal information.

    That makes sense.

    It’s NOYFB.

    A platoon of deranged birthers are champing at the bit to stalk and harass the family of the physician who delivered the President.

    Since they probably cannot go further insane, let them rot in their own festering paranoia, arrogance and delusional sense of entitlement.

    Transparency? Birther idiots use that as an excuse to violate privacy laws and greedily demand political dirt.

    These deranged fools who have no intention on voting for the President but only to undermine, disparage and attempt to delegitimize deserve to be ignored.

  491. avatar
    Thrifty April 13, 2011 at 5:11 pm #

    nc1: LOL, what is your definition of HALF?All fields in the document are typed except signatures and date signed field.

    Fukino was being figurative, you dimwit. She was clearly using “half” in the colloquial sense of “partially”. And that perfectly describes the condition of the Nordyke certificate.

  492. avatar
    Northland10 April 13, 2011 at 8:52 pm #

    MichaelN: The founding fathers either wanted the highest possible allegiance or they didn’t.

    And we all know what the founding fathers wanted.

    You are in denial.

    The Founders did want to avoid “cabal, intrigue and corruption” in the selection of the President. They also felt confident that they had found the method:

    Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it.

    and

    The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

    The Federalist #68

    The founders felt the process and the people could determine the qualifications from the available information and make the correct choice. Apparently, you do not agree with the founding fathers. Of course, they had trust in the people, though, apparently, you do not.

    We do not need a “Guardian Council” to tell us who is eligible. We can determine that for ourselves, and, so far, we have been correct.

  493. avatar
    MichaelN April 14, 2011 at 2:34 am #

    JoZeppy: And this bizzare numerology is supposed to mean what exactly?

    Except for the minor detail that “natural born citizen” has never included jus sanguinis.

    Which is why they required the president to be a “natural born citizen.”A phrase they were all very familiar with due to its long history in the common law.

    Well, apparently everyone but you, Mario, and Orly.

    Yes, it we that are in denial.And by “we” I mean the entire US Supreme Court, every federal judge, 99.99% of the legal community, the vast majority of Congress, every civic books published since the late 19th century, and majority of the population of the United States.Yup….everyone else but the hand full of conspiracy nutes are in denial.

    You said:

    “And this bizzare numerology is supposed to mean what exactly?”

    Answer: The ‘bizarre numerology’ is to demonstrate that 14 years residency was not the only eligibility criteria & was only one element of an overall age requirement for eligibility i.e 35 years old.
    It’s perfectly reasonable that to arrive at 35 years, the founders considered the age of maturity being 21 years and added 14 years residency to it.

    You said:

    “Except for the minor detail that “natural born citizen̶