Main Menu

The Atlantic predicts demise of birtherism

A major article has appeared on The Atlantic web site, titled How Donald Trump Will Kill Birtherism. The thesis of the article is that Donald Trump is calling attention to birtherism and  leading the media into a frenzy of fact-checking — information that will destroy the birther movement.

Wishful thinking, I would call it

Granted, there are a number of people who have mild doubts about Obama because they saw some misinformation in an email or stumbled on s0me fact-averse web site; and maybe some of them could be swayed by a stiff dose of facts from fact checkers like FactCheck.org, or PolitiFact.com (ignoring the fact that those organizations plus every major newspaper in the country has already said the birthers are coo coo, and CNN called them “whack jobs” as early as 2008). And maybe the percentage numbers for doubt go down a little. That hardly matters. The birther movement consists of militant, hard-core denialists, regularly fanned by a host of web sites like WorldNetDaily (and worse), who have a proven track record of biting off the facts, chewing them up, and spitting them back out as proof that everybody’s lying, a traitor, and deathly afraid of Obama. Birtherism is a tar baby, rarely allowing escape for anyone once caught.

Print Friendly

,

90 Responses to The Atlantic predicts demise of birtherism

  1. avatar
    Greg April 21, 2011 at 1:34 pm #

    I think it might end the birtherism that it is okay for Republicans to wink at. Even Michelle Bachman has said that the GOP needs to drop it. We might start to see Republicans going farther than, “I personally believe Obama but I can’t tell other Republicans what to think.”

  2. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 1:35 pm #

    I was so unimpressed by this article that I wrote two comments and left them at the Atlantic.

    The article has an essential flaw when it says: “But Trump’s ambitions have already brought about the one thing that can combat birtherism most effectively: fact-checking.’

    As someone who has argued with birthers for over two years now, and someone who knows all the facts cold, I have never had any success dealing with their seemingly willful blindness. Fact checking goes nowhere against “everybody’s lying, everybody’s a traitor and everybody’s afraid of Obama.” Conspiracy theorists are not amenable to facts; facts only serve to prove how deep the conspiracy goes.

    Further, facts about where Obama was born do not get at the underlying reason for the birther movement: they hate his guts.

    And

    Everybody knows that Obama passed through a grueling election campaign, was elected, certified President by Congress and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the Supreme court, enough for any reasonable person to believe Barack Obama is eligible. One would have to have an unhealthy suspicion of the electoral process to harbor any doubts after all of that, even without reference to the supporting facts that Obama released a birth certificate in 2008, Hawaiian officials (including two governors and the Director of the Department of Health) have said he was born in Hawaii, and there were even newspaper announcements of his birth in two Honolulu newspapers.

    If there were legitimate questions, why didn’t John McCain or Hillary Clinton raise them during the campaign? The only reason birthers give is that “they were afraid”, and thereby you see how facts mean nothing to birthers.

  3. avatar
    Sean April 21, 2011 at 1:46 pm #

    Obviously Trump’s rhetoric is a promotion for both him and Corsi’s book.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 2:02 pm #

    Sean: Obviously Trump’s rhetoric is a promotion for both him and Corsi’s book.

    Now that would be rich, if Joseph Farah had tricked Trump into becoming a shill for the book. Oh my!

  5. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 2:18 pm #

    Doc,

    This will have the effect of inoculating people against the birthers, so it could (if it’s profile gets high enough) ‘kill’ the movement in the sense of completely marginalizing it. For various reasons I doubt it will happen this way, but it seems possible to me…

  6. avatar
    Passerby April 21, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

    Purpura v Sebelius – Dismissed due to lack of standing and plaintiffs filed for summary judgment before they had properly served the Government.

    Fail….

  7. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 21, 2011 at 3:13 pm #

    For what it is worth, I posted the following. Regulars here can skip, since I have said the same things here many times before. As I say at the end, I wish a pub with the stuture, resources and circulation would pursue some of these issues with some depth, and thus get them out to the opinion leaders. The regulars here should chip in with their insights.

    I have been writing about the birther issue since 2008. The author has made some good points, but underestimates the remorselessness of the birthers.

    Many will never acknowledge Obama as a natural born citizen because his father was not a U.S. citizen. They push crank constitutional theories that the President must have two citizen parents, or that his dual citizenship with his father’s native country disqualifies him. No court has ever supported this theory, which was rejected on the merits by the Indiana courts in Ankeny v. Daniels. No law professor at any accredited law school has ever espoused it. The Supreme Court rejected two cases in 2008 that raised it. But the birthers cling to it.

    Many others cling to the idea that the certificate that Obama released is a forgery, with no credible evidence at all. The Hawaiian officials have all verified that it correctly shows what is in their records.

    Others do not know, or fail to recognize that Obama has released his birth certificate, as that term is legally defined in binding federal law. See section 7211 of Pub. L. 108–458, 118 Stat. 3638, 3823 (Dec. 17, 2004). Birth certificate is “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.” See the note to 5 U.S.C. 301.

    The Certification of Live Birth (COLB) 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.”

    Now this definition is binding on the states by the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the express delegated power to prescribe the manner in which these public records are proved. The COLB is a birth certificate, is a public record, and is legally binding on all other states.

    Obama asked for and gave to the press the certificate the state issued. Hawaii no longer issues the old forms to anyone. Its legal officials maintain that state law prevents the release of the forms.

    So, to the posters who ask for his birth certificate, he has already issued it. If they do not believe it, they will never believe any document issued by Hawaii.

  8. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 3:49 pm #

    The irresistible force is going to meet the immovable object in the coming year. Will that be the end of birtherism? Probably not en total, but it will be the beginning of the end, especially if the president is reelected.

  9. avatar
    bob April 21, 2011 at 3:52 pm #

    An (ironic) error in the article: CNN has never seen Obama’s COLB.

  10. avatar
    bob April 21, 2011 at 3:57 pm #

    Or maybe CNN has: “CNN has seen a copy of the document and verified that it is official.”

  11. avatar
    Adam April 21, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Now that would be rich, if Joseph Farah had tricked Trump into becoming a shill for the book. Oh my!

    Nah, Trump is too smart for that. If anything, he’s shilling in return for a piece of the royalties.

  12. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 21, 2011 at 4:04 pm #

    bob: An (ironic) error in the article: CNN has never seen Obama’s COLB.

    True — they have only seen photographs of it so far as has been reported in the press.

  13. avatar
    G Wiz April 21, 2011 at 4:13 pm #

    Have you seen this from Worldnet?

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401

  14. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 4:16 pm #

    Adams was a temporary employee for the state of Hawaii for one summer; hardly a “Hawaii official” in the truest sense of the word.

  15. avatar
    Passerby April 21, 2011 at 4:18 pm #

    G Wiz:
    Have you seen this from Worldnet?

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401

    Bit of old news, and no he is no Hawaiian official, he at best worked for Hawaii for a period of time.

  16. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    And his claim that someone told him that there is no “long form” for the president is merely hearsay. Moreover, he does he name the person who told him this so that person can be questioned on how they know that the president has no long form.

  17. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 4:19 pm #

    And his claim that someone told him that there is no “long form” for the president is merely hearsay. Moreover, he does not name the person who told him this so that person can be questioned on how they know that the president has no long form.

  18. avatar
    Vince Treacy April 21, 2011 at 4:34 pm #

    Doc: “True — they have only seen photographs of it so far as has been reported in the press”

    I think the author has said he will correct that point.

    Good for him.

  19. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 4:34 pm #

    And while we’re on the subject of ex- Hawaii officials, here’s a REAL ex-Hawaii official who was appointed by the Republican governor and worked at a full time position with the State of Hawaii.

    Ex-Hawaii official denounces ‘ludicrous’ birther claims

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

  20. avatar
    Robert Clark April 21, 2011 at 4:38 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Further, facts about where Obama was born do not get at the underlying reason for the birther movement: they hate his guts.

    We are agreed on that.

    Bob

  21. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 21, 2011 at 4:45 pm #

    Robert Clark: We are agreed on that.

    Bob

    The problem is that your reasons for hating President Obama are not rational (which you’ve admitted [or at least demonstrated]) – this is why you are a bigot (it is possible to hate President Obama and not be a bigot or a racist, by the way, just take a look at the perspective of the left… many of them are as upset with President Obama as the birthers are – their reasons are just based on things like facts and the Constitution…).

  22. avatar
    Joey April 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm #

    Honolulu city clerk debunks new ‘birther’ theory
    Over the past few weeks, a Kentucky resident and teacher named Timothy Adams has made the rounds online and on talk radio with an extraordinary claim — he was the “senior elections clerk” for Honolulu in 2008, where it was an open secret that the city and state had no proof of Barack Obama’s citizenship. As he told WorldNetDaily, the racing form for birtherism:
    I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver’s license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone’s identity. I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Barack Obama].
    I checked with Glen Takahashi, the administrator of the Honolulu City Clerk’s office, and while he verified that Adams worked there, he explained – gently making it clear he did not want to “call anyone a liar” — that Adams never actually had access to information about Barack Obama.
    “Our office does not have access to birth records,” Takahashi said. “That’s handled by the state of Hawaii Department of Health. Where he’s getting that, I don’t know. Put it this way: Barack Obama was not trying to register to vote in Hawaii. He is, as far as I know, not a registered voter here. So no one was looking that up.”
    Takahashi explained that the “senior elections clerk” job that Adams held was a low-level data entry position dealing with voter registration and absentee ballots — Adams was one of dozens of temporary employees who staffed the pre-election rush. And he contradicted Adams’s claims that Obama’s lack of a birth certificate was an “open secret” or that voters contacted the office to ask about it.
    “To be honest, I fielded no questions about that,” Takahashi said. “Why would anyone ask us? We don’t have those records.”
    The internal contradictions of Adams’s story haven’t stopped him from expanding his media presence this week, most recently with a local TV interview in which he repeated his claims (some of them based on popular “birther” rumors from the Web) while, confusingly, stating that he didn’t think Obama’s eligibility was an issue.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/there_are_some_people_who.html

  23. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) April 21, 2011 at 4:59 pm #

    G Wiz:
    Have you seen this from Worldnet?

    http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=254401

    Of course we’ve seen Tim Adams the liar he was also interviewed on Reality Check Radio recently and his story was all over the map. But what he did say is WND paid for the affidavit and wrote it themselves and had him sign it. Adams was no official he worked there for about 2 months during a time no election was going on. He claimed he verified absentee ballots. For the time he worked there this wasn’t possible. Adams also claimed someone told him in a phone call or email that Obama had no BC but he wouldn’t identify who or say which medium was used for sure.

  24. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm #

    Joey:
    Honolulu city clerk debunks new birther’ theory
    Over the past few weeks, a Kentucky resident and teacher named Timothy Adams has made the rounds online and on talk radio with an extraordinary claim — he was the “senior elections clerk” for Honolulu in 2008, where it was an open secret that the city and state had no proof of Barack Obama’s citizenship. As he told WorldNetDaily, the racing form for birtherism:
    I had direct access to the Social Security database, the national crime computer, state driver’s license information, international passport information, basically just about anything you can imagine to get someone’s identity. I could look up what bank your home mortgage was in. I was informed by my boss that we did not have a birth record [for Barack Obama].
    I checked with Glen Takahashi, the administrator of the Honolulu City Clerk’s office, and while he verified that Adams worked there, he explained – gently making it clear he did not want to “call anyone a liar” — that Adams never actually had access to information about Barack Obama.
    “Our office does not have access to birth records,” Takahashi said. “That’s handled by the state of Hawaii Department of Health. Where he’s getting that, I don’t know. Put it this way: Barack Obama was not trying to register to vote in Hawaii. He is, as far as I know, not a registered voter here. So no one was looking that up.”
    Takahashi explained that the “senior elections clerk” job that Adams held was a low-level data entry position dealing with voter registration and absentee ballots — Adams was one of dozens of temporary employees who staffed the pre-election rush. And he contradicted Adams’s claims that Obama’s lack of a birth certificate was an “open secret” or that voters contacted the office to ask about it.
    “To be honest, I fielded no questions about that,” Takahashi said. “Why would anyone ask us? We don’t have those records.”
    The internal contradictions of Adams’s story haven’t stopped him from expanding his media presence this week, most recently with a local TV interview in which he repeated his claims (some of them based on popular “birther” rumors from the Web) while, confusingly, stating that he didn’t think Obama’s eligibility was an issue.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/06/there_are_some_people_who.html

    It should also be pointed out, Joey, that Adams made a sworn deposition in which he never states that he looked at any records to come to his conclusion; rather, his deposition merely says that someone told him that the president doesn’t have a long form birth certificate, yet he never names that or those individuals whom he claims to have told him this. This backs up Takahashi’s claim that he didn’t have access to the records.

    http://www.wnd.com/files/110123adams1.pdf

    http://www.wnd.com/files/110123adams2.pdf

  25. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 5:03 pm #

    well, it wasn’t a deposition; it was a sworn affidavit. sorry about that

  26. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 5:14 pm #

    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross): Adams also claimed someone told him in a phone call or email that Obama had no BC but he wouldn’t identify who or say which medium was used for sure.

    I believe what he actually said, Bob, was that the person who told him that the president had no long form had received that information in a phone call or an email and relayed it to him, not that he himself had received any phone calls or emails about it. The person who supposedly received the call or the email just told Adams that he had received this information; therefore, Adams doesn’t even have any direct knowledge of the phone call or email other than what someone else, supposedly, told him about it

  27. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 7:25 pm #

    Robert Clark: We are agreed on that.Bob

    Which is really all that you folks need to say on the issue.

    This whole birtherism nonsense and resorting to fake smears and lies is completely unnecessary and is what gets you into trouble and look bad.

    Lying and slandering others are sinful and shameful actions. Why debase yourself and demonstrate such reprehensible character traits? To be a birther, you have to let your emotional feelings lead you to either utter gullibility, insanity or intentional deceit …or likely some combination of all of those.

    All that does is reflect badly on you and engenders the loathing and ire that the rest of the world has towards birthers.

    Ok, you hate the guy. Ok your reasons are probably based on some emotional and irrational basis. But then again, if that is all you said and left it at that…not much of a problem. Go ahead, be angry. Don’t vote for him. That is your right and that’s all fine and dandy. People don’t have to agree on issues or their likes/dislikes…but honesty is at least respectable, even when viewpoints are not shared.

    Why do you bitter folks have to come across so petty by making up excuses and stories to cover for and justify your feelings? That is neither a secure, sane nor ethical way to behave.

    Just be open with it. The slanderous character demonization efforts to justify are what gets you folks into trouble.

    It is the unethical lies, smears and easily debunked nonsense that comes across either stupid or extremely gullible that get’s you folks in trouble and damages YOUR own character and credibility. So simply…DON’T.

  28. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 7:36 pm #

    Oh boy, G. Wish i had said that.

  29. avatar
    Majority Will April 21, 2011 at 7:44 pm #

    For the Idiotic, Un-American, Cowardly Birther Scum:

    http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2011/04/21/422-mike-luckovich-on-birthers/?cxntfid=blogs_mike_luckovich&ref=nf

    Enjoy.

  30. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 8:02 pm #

    Majority Will:
    For the Idiotic, Un-American, Cowardly Birther Scum:

    http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2011/04/21/422-mike-luckovich-on-birthers/?cxntfid=blogs_mike_luckovich&ref=nf

    Enjoy.

    and pretty soon, that little Frankstein baby is going come of age, Will. lmao. Will the GOP disown it? Or will they follow it down in flames?

  31. avatar
    Majority Will April 21, 2011 at 8:16 pm #

    FUTTHESHUCKUP: and pretty soon, that little Frankstein baby is going come of age, Will. lmao. Will the GOP disown it? Or will they follow it down in flames?

    Isn’t Bristol Palin looking for a husband?

  32. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 8:23 pm #

    Yup, and it would be a perfect match too. lol

  33. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 21, 2011 at 8:28 pm #

    Do those two always arrive and leave at the same time like they did tonight? Hmmmmmm.

  34. avatar
    nemocapn April 21, 2011 at 8:37 pm #

    I posted the following at the Atlantic site:

    Birther logic hurts your head. The Nordyke twins have real birth certificates; Obama doesn’t. Donald Trump says, “A Certificate of Live Birth is not a birth certificate.” Birthers say he’s right. They want you to compare Obama’s COLB to the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates to see the difference.

    I have, and the Nordyke twins’ birth certificates say “Certificate of Live Birth,” which Donald Trump says is not a birth certificate. Huh? Obama may as well invite all the birthers to take a corner seat in the oval office. By the time they figure it out, it will be 2016.

    Sure enough, a birther responded, oblivious to the flawed logic:

    I see PLENTY of differences. Do you see that cursive writing on the Nordyke certificate that shows it is from the 1960′s (which is not in Obama’s)….I do. Do you see name of the attending physician and the hospital (which is not in Obama’s)….I do. Do you see both parents’ names (which is not in Obama’s)….I do.

    Sorry to burst your little bubble, Nemocapn.

    I guess for some birthers there’s no problem with holding two contradictory views at the same time: 1) The Certificates of Live Birth of the Nordyke twins are birth certificates.
    2) A Certificate of Live Birth is not a birth certificate.

  35. avatar
    G April 21, 2011 at 9:22 pm #

    Majority Will: For the Idiotic, Un-American, Cowardly Birther Scum:http://blogs.ajc.com/mike-luckovich/2011/04/21/422-mike-luckovich-on-birthers/?cxntfid=blogs_mike_luckovich&ref=nfEnjoy.

    Hilarious!

  36. avatar
    G Wiz April 22, 2011 at 10:10 am #

    Thanks all:

    I knew it was a deceitful article – I just didn’t know why.

  37. avatar
    Tes April 22, 2011 at 5:56 pm #

    Another good article from AJC: Birtherism: The monster that ate the GOP — http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/04/22/birtherism-the-monster-that-ate-the-gop/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

    Bookman agrees with Doc C (and many of us) that “nothing Obama could say or do would end this thing” — quoting political scientist David Redlawsk of Rutgers University. Good read

  38. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 22, 2011 at 6:08 pm #

    Tes:
    Another good article from AJC:Birtherism: The monster that ate the GOP — http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/04/22/birtherism-the-monster-that-ate-the-gop/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

    Bookman agrees with Doc C (and many of us) that “nothing Obama could say or do would end this thing” — quoting political scientist David Redlawsk of Rutgers University.Good read

    Yes, unfortunately, racism will never die, Tes. There will always be someone ready to carry that torch.

  39. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP April 22, 2011 at 6:24 pm #

    G Wiz:
    Thanks all:

    I knew it was a deceitful article – I just didn’t know why.

    Just to sum it up, Wiz, all he says is that someone told him about some information about the president that some individual had received in an email or a phone call, yet he never names the person who supposedly gave him that information, nor did he say that he had either received or saw/heard that email or phone call himself. He also says that it was an open secret that the president has no long form yet has not provided any names to back him up on that claim, and no one from Hawaii has come forward to verify that claim He gives the illusion that he looked at birth records in Hawaii yet never said that he actually did look at those records; his supervisor said he didn’t have access to those records, and he never says he looked at any such records in his sworn affidavit.

    When push comes to shove, all he has is unsubstantiated hearsay that would not be acceptable in any court of law. His claims rest with him, and none of what he says can be verified due to the fact that he refuses to give anyone the information they need to follow it back to the source, if there actually is one.

  40. avatar
    Robert Clark April 22, 2011 at 10:23 pm #

    Vince Treacy: Obama asked for and gave to the press the certificate the state issued. Hawaii no longer issues the old forms to anyone. Its legal officials maintain that state law prevents the release of the forms.

    So, to the posters who ask for his birth certificate, he has already issued it. If they do not believe it, they will never believe any document issued by Hawaii

    The problem is it is highly dubious that in Hawaii state law that a copy of the original long form birth certificate can’t be released to the person himself. It is likely that it is only current policy that only the short form is sent out, which can be changed by a stroke of the pen by the director of the Hawaii health department or of the governor.
    In fact, the Hawaii Attorney General told the governor that the law says birth records can only be released with consent of the person on the birth certificate:

    Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii governor drops mission to dispel birthers, prove Obama was born in state.
    BY ALIYAH SHAHID
    DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
    Saturday, January 22, 2011
    “Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie is giving up on efforts to squash claims that President Barack Obama wasn’t born in his state — but it’s not for lack of trying.
    “State Attorney General David Louie told the governor that it’s against state law to release private documents, including an individual’s birth documentation without the person’s consent.”
    http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-22/news/27096375_1_gynecological-hospital-hawaii-governor-president-obama

    If it really were the case that the long form couldn’t even be released to the person himself he would have told the governor that since that would mean the choice was not up to Obama.
    That a spokesman for the Attorney General got this wrong in information given out to the public only serves to decrease the public’s confidence that every thing is being handled above board.

    Bob

  41. avatar
    Suranis April 22, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    Robert Clark: The problem is it is highly dubious that in Hawaii state law that a copy of the original long form birth certificate can’t be released to the person himself.

    Allow me to translate this line.

    “I have no idea what Hawaii state law actually says, and I haven’t bothered finding out. Please go spend you valuable time and finding out so i can sit here scratching myself and spouting more lazy nonsense”

  42. avatar
    Robert Clark April 22, 2011 at 11:00 pm #

    Robert Clark: If it really were the case that the long form couldn’t even be released to the person himself he would have told the governor that since that would mean the choice was not up to Obama.
    That a spokesman for the Attorney General got this wrong in information given out to the public only serves to decrease the public’s confidence that every thing is being handled above board.

    I was referring there to statements by the spokesman for the Attorney General’s office that copies of the original birth records couldn’t be released to the person himself:

    Ex-Hawaii official denounces ‘ludicrous’ birther claims.
    Comments follow statements by Donald Trump questioning legitimacy of president’s birth record.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951/ns/politics-more_politics/

    These statements by the spokesman are in conflict with what the Attorney General himself told the governor that such records could be released with the person’s consent.

    Bob

  43. avatar
    Robert Clark April 22, 2011 at 11:05 pm #

    Suranis: Allow me to translate this line.

    “I have no idea what Hawaii state law actually says, and I haven’t bothered finding out. Please go spend you valuable time and finding out so i can sit here scratching myself and spouting more lazy nonsense”

    It’s been discussed and quoted many times on this board that Hawaii the law is that copies of ANY birth documents have to be released to the person on the birth documents if they request it.

    Bob

  44. avatar
    Suranis April 22, 2011 at 11:11 pm #

    So what? Go find out what Hawai’in law actually says then, or is that too rational for a lazy git that want’s to spent his time having other people go and do his work for him.

    Hawai’in law is public record. Go find out that the law is and get back to us. I’m sure the public confidence can actually stand the wait of you trying to read and then copy and paste.

  45. avatar
    G April 22, 2011 at 11:47 pm #

    Robert Clark: It’s been discussed and quoted many times on this board that Hawaii the law is that copies of ANY birth documents have to be released to the person on the birth documents if they request it.Bob

    NO. In HI, only that you can INSPECT your original record.

    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.

    To a further point, no person gets the ORIGINAL anywhere. A copy in those states that allow it at best, and quite often this is NOT a certified copy that can be used for official verification purposes.

    States OWN the original, not the people who’s info they contain. There is a clear and simple reason for this – the states are responsible for documenting and maintaining these records. Once you give out the “original”, you no longer have it. Therefore, a state cannot do that. For similar reasons of maintaining the integrity of the original, very strict access control restrictions need to be put on even accessing or viewing such documents, beyond just privacy concerns.

  46. avatar
    Robert Clark April 23, 2011 at 3:37 am #

    G: It is the unethical lies, smears and easily debunked nonsense that comes across either stupid or extremely gullible that get’s you folks in trouble and damages YOUR own character and credibility. So simply…DON’T.

    Obama can end this. He chooses not to. That’s the problem.
    That *he* is not behaving in a rational manner is why the issue still festers.

    Bob

  47. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 23, 2011 at 4:02 am #

    Robert Clark: Obama can end this. He chooses not to. That’s the problem.That *he* is not behaving in a rational manner is why the issue still festers.

    Bob

    Even if President Obama could ‘end this’ (which neither I nor many of the posters here believe) why should he?

  48. avatar
    Robert Clark April 23, 2011 at 4:09 am #

    G: To a further point, no person gets the ORIGINAL anywhere. A copy in those states that allow it at best, and quite often this is NOT a certified copy that can be used for official verification purposes.

    States OWN the original, not the people who’s info they contain.

    No, that’s the point. The state law, which has been quoted on this forum many times, says *certified* copies of ANY birth documents have to be provided to the person they are about if they request it. The spokesman for the Atty. Gen. was telling the public that the law says pretty much the EXACT opposite of what the law really says.
    Let me state this more strongly. If it really is true the state health department will NEVER release a copy of the person’s own original long form birth certificate to the person himself then the Hawaii health department is breaking Hawaii law.
    However, I severely doubt this is the case. I believe the law was stated correctly by the Attorney General himself to the governor. The records can be released with the person’s consent.
    Current *policy*, as it is in many states, is just to release the computer-generated short form because it is easier for the state workers and cheaper for the state to punch in some numbers in the computer and print out that form. With the long form you have to have a state worker go though stacks of documents to find it, take it out, photocopy it, then be sure it gets back to the right location if it needs to be found again.

    Bob

  49. avatar
    The Magic M April 23, 2011 at 5:43 am #

    > Obama can end this. He chooses not to. That’s the problem.
    That *he* is not behaving in a rational manner is why the issue still festers.

    That is exactly what you and your ilk said before he released the COLB. Your behaviour afterwards proves exactly the point that’s been made above – that it will “never end”.

    Just look at your fellow birther nc1 who always demands confirmations of confirmations of confirmations.

    If Obama released a certified copy of the “long form”, you’d just rehash your COLB memes – “it’s a forgery”, “it’s only an internet image”, “it doesn’t state X”, “it is called Y and not Z”, “a FOO is not a BAR”, “there were no xerox machines in 1961″ etc.

  50. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 7:40 am #

    Robert Clark: The birthers can end this. They choose not to. That’s the problem.
    That *they* are not behaving in a rational manner is why the issue still festers.

    I completely agree.

  51. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 7:45 am #

    Robert Clark: However, I severely doubt this is the case

    You are the only person I have seen use the phrase “severely doubt”. Most people would say “sincerely doubt” or “seriously doubt”. Very strange…

  52. avatar
    Suranis April 23, 2011 at 8:06 am #

    Scientist: You are the only person I have seen use the phrase “severely doubt”.Most people would say “sincerely doubt” or “seriously doubt”.Very strange…

    I would actually say “Severely doubt” But I’m in Ireland. It must be an artifact of European English as opposed to American English.

  53. avatar
    Sef April 23, 2011 at 8:33 am #

    Suranis:
    So what? Go find out what Hawai’in law actually says then, or is that too rational for a lazy git that want’s to spent his time having other people go and do his work for him.

    Hawai’in law is public record. Go find out that the law is and get back to us. I’m sure the public confidence can actually stand the wait of you trying to read and then copy and paste.

    More to the point, they need to find the HI DoH Policies and Procedures which implement those laws.

  54. avatar
    Scientist April 23, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    Sef: More to the point, they need to find the HI DoH Policies and Procedures which implement those laws.

    EXACTLY! I have dealt with all kinds of government agencies, including FDA, NIH, the Patent Office and USDA. They follow their P&Ps. Anyone who thinks you will get anywhere by running int here with your book of statutes doesn’t know their hindquarters from their elbow.

    If someone wants to sue DOH and can win, then they have something. Until then they have zip.

  55. avatar
    That Other Mike April 23, 2011 at 9:53 am #

    Scientist: EXACTLY! I have dealt with all kinds of government agencies, including FDA, NIH, the Patent Office and USDA. They follow their P&Ps. Anyone who thinks you will get anywhere by running int here with your book of statutes doesn’t know their hindquarters from their elbow.

    that seems to be a universal around the globe; I work for social services in England, and we have our rules written by our parent authority, and woe unto anyone who deviates. It’s a CYA thing, really, but it ensures that data protection standards etc are followed.

  56. avatar
    Keith April 23, 2011 at 10:46 am #

    Robert Clark: No, that’s the point. The state law, which has been quoted on this forum many times, says *certified* copies of ANY birth documents have to be provided to the person they are about if they request it.

    Can you see the bolded text that I have quoted? Those are your words, from your post.

    Do you ever make any attempt to understand what you type?

    I refer you to the following quote (which can be found on Dr. C’s new ‘Debunkers Guide to the Obama Conspiracy Theories)

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

    (b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18. (c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.

  57. avatar
    Northland10 April 23, 2011 at 10:50 am #

    Robert Clark: Obama can end this. He chooses not to. That’s the problem.

    Right now, the problem is for the Republicans. Why should he end that? He has the choice to appease a group of angry people who would not vote for him no matter what, or spend time working on the needs of the country. It looks like he is choosing the latter.

    The fact that “Obama won’t end this” may be a problem for you, but it is not a problem for him. He has the gift that keeps on giving. Without lifting a finger, he can annoy and divide the opposition and send them into a frantic damage control mode.

    It is so nice of you and the birthers to do all the heavy lifting for him. I hope he sends you a thank you card (or a nice Soros gift).

  58. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 1:18 pm #

    Robert Clark: Obama can end this. He chooses not to. That’s the problem.That *he* is not behaving in a rational manner is why the issue still festers.Bob

    Nope. FALSE. He cannot “end this”. No action he takes will make irrational birthers go away.

    He’s produced what he can legally produce and that is more than enough as well as more than anyone else has ever done before.

    He went the extra mile and you birther bigots decide to not act rational and demand and ever moving set of proof of proof of proof which will never be good enough for you.

    There is no amount of proof that will satisfy most birthers, nor would it get them to vote for him. There is NO value to paying attention to such a group of unsatisfiable malcontents. The rational move is to ignore them.

    The birthers are the only ones that can end this, by accepting the results of the 2008 election and moving on with their lives. They chose not to. They are the only ones being irrational here.

  59. avatar
    G April 23, 2011 at 1:21 pm #

    Robert Clark: No, that’s the point. The state law, which has been quoted on this forum many times, says *certified* copies of ANY birth documents have to be provided to the person they are about if they request it. The spokesman for the Atty. Gen. was telling the public that the law says pretty much the EXACT opposite of what the law really says.Let me state this more strongly. If it really is true the state health department will NEVER release a copy of the person’s own original long form birth certificate to the person himself then the Hawaii health department is breaking Hawaii law.However, I severely doubt this is the case. I believe the law was stated correctly by the Attorney General himself to the governor. The records can be released with the person’s consent.Current *policy*, as it is in many states, is just to release the computer-generated short form because it is easier for the state workers and cheaper for the state to punch in some numbers in the computer and print out that form. With the long form you have to have a state worker go though stacks of documents to find it, take it out, photocopy it, then be sure it gets back to the right location if it needs to be found again.Bob

    Nope. As usual you are completely WRONG.

    The state and its officials have been consistent in explaining what they do issue and what they do not release. You chose to try to twist their words and rules to see something that is not there.

    Anytime they refer to a “certified copy” that you can receive from your original records, that means the resulting document you will get is the COLB, which is the ONLY certified format they provide and which pulls all of its info from those original records.

  60. avatar
    Robert Clark April 24, 2011 at 12:14 pm #

    Keith: Can you see the bolded text that I have quoted? Those are your words, from your post.
    Do you ever make any attempt to understand what you type?
    I refer you to the following quote (which can be found on Dr. C’s new ‘Debunkers Guide to the Obama Conspiracy Theories)
    Hawaiian Law states that for legal purposes, all certified copies are equally valid, including those by computer printout. §338-13
    (b)Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18. (c)Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.

    Fair enough. And I’ll choose to bold that one word above.

    Bob

  61. avatar
    Slartibartfast April 24, 2011 at 12:34 pm #

    Robert Clark

    Would you admit that the only one potentially harmed (and thus with standing to sue – unless the state itself sues) if the DoH wont release a copy of the long form is President Obama? (Furthermore, would you admit that it is in his best interest that such a document NOT be released [at least until the media attention isn't actively hurting his opponents...]?)

  62. avatar
    Robert Clark April 25, 2011 at 2:24 am #

    Slartibartfast: Would you admit that the only one potentially harmed (and thus with standing to sue – unless the state itself sues) if the DoH wont release a copy of the long form is President Obama?(Furthermore, would you admit that it is in his best interest that such a document NOT be released [at least until the media attention isn't actively hurting his opponents...]?)

    I’m not understanding the first part of the question about who should sue.
    For the second part. I don’t agree that it harms his opponents more than Obama. Americans are skeptical of politicians. And Obama is a politician remember? I think it should be continually blared that he is hiding this document that should be completely harmless and without giving a reason why. It should also be blared that no one in the media will ask him the obvious question of why won’t he just show it.

    Bob

  63. avatar
    G April 25, 2011 at 3:01 am #

    Robert Clark: Fair enough. And I’ll choose to bold that one word above.
    Bob

    Well, then pay attention to this too:

    Robert Clark: (b)Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18. (c)Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health.

    You seem to try to make this statement out to mean other than what it simply does. It simply states the RANGE of options they could CHOOSE to authorize.

    However, that does NOT mean they authorize ALL of those options. It has already been explained to you countless times, both by people here and by HI official’s own words that if you request ANY BC contents, the certified copy you will receive in return IS the COLB and that is the ONLY format they will provide that info. Has been that way for a decade now.

  64. avatar
    nc1 April 25, 2011 at 3:07 am #

    Robert Clark: Fair enough. And I’ll choose to bold that one word above.

    Bob

    Before you ask him whether he understands the meaning of word any you shoud try an easier question: the meaning of word is.

  65. avatar
    G April 25, 2011 at 3:10 am #

    Robert Clark: Americans are skeptical of politicians. And Obama is a politician remember?

    Another worthless and meaningless argument Bob. Anyone runing against Obama is ALSO a politician by definition. So your argument of skepticism would apply to those individuals as well….

    So your making a meaningless blanket statement that in practice would also apply so broadly to anyone considered for office that the distinction too is rendered meaningless.

    Robert Clark:
    I think it should be continually blared that he is hiding this document that should be completely harmless and without giving a reason why. It should also be blared that no one in the media will ask him the obvious question of why won’t he just show it.

    Now we get to the truth of what you are really doing. You feel justified in making FALSE accusations and CONCERN TROLLING against a President you don’t like because your true intent here and other places it that you hope if you repeat LIES about Obama long enough, you might be able to trick some gullible people into believing in them OR at LEAST in SOWING DOUBTS to manipulate their views.

    You are nothing but a propaganda con artist with intent to deceit in an Orwellian fashion.

  66. avatar
    G April 25, 2011 at 3:12 am #

    nc1: Before you ask him whether he understands the meaning of word any you shoud try an easier question: the meaning of word is.

    Well, coming from you NC1, who has a long history of demonstrating that you have an abysmally poor understanding of words and equally dismal reading comprehension abilities… you’ve no room to talk. In fact, you’ve shown yourself to be one of the least qualified people around to know what words mean in the context they are used…

  67. avatar
    Majority Will April 25, 2011 at 9:24 am #

    nc1: Before you ask him whether he understands the meaning of word any you shoud try an easier question: the meaning of word is.

    Only if you can explain the meaning of “shoud”, hypocritical troll.

    Are you still fighting extradition for war crimes in your native country?

  68. avatar
    Majority Will April 25, 2011 at 9:26 am #

    G: You are nothing but a propaganda con artist with intent to deceit in an Orwellian fashion.

    Exactly right. He’s an angry twit and yet another birther hypocrite with more spare time than common sense.

  69. avatar
    Robert Clark April 26, 2011 at 7:27 am #

    G: Another worthless and meaningless argument Bob.Anyone runing against Obama is ALSO a politician by definition.So your argument of skepticism would apply to those individuals as well….

    My point is the news media is not applying that level of skepticism that would be applied to any other politician. For any other POLITICIAN they would ask the obvious question: why are you hiding this document that ought to be completely harmless?

    Bob

  70. avatar
    Robert Clark April 26, 2011 at 7:31 am #

    G: However, that does NOT mean they authorize ALL of those options. It has already been explained to you countless times, both by people here and by HI official’s own words that if you request ANY BC contents, the certified copy you will receive in return IS the COLB and that is the ONLY format they will provide that info. Has been that way for a decade now.

    As has been confirmed by the CNN report, the obvious interpretation of that passage in the law is the correct one: the state must release a copy of the original long form birth certificate if the person requests it.

    Bob

  71. avatar
    Suranis April 26, 2011 at 7:55 am #

    Robert Clark: As has been confirmed by the CNN report, the obvious interpretation of that passage in the law is the correct one: the state must release a copy of the original long form birth certificate if the person requests it.

    Oh really? Where?

  72. avatar
    Greg April 26, 2011 at 8:27 am #

    Robert Clark: As has been confirmed by the CNN report, the obvious interpretation of that passage in the law is the correct one: the state must release a copy of the original long form birth certificate if the person requests it.

    Bob

    Do you understand that FOIA is a different law than HRS 338?

  73. avatar
    Robert Clark April 26, 2011 at 8:41 am #

    Greg: Do you understand that FOIA is a different law than HRS 338?

    Who cares? The spokesman for the highest law enforcement office in the state put out incorrect information on the law to the public. That incorrect information is now being repeated on different news sites.
    It is incumbent on the Hawaii Atty. Gen. to correct that false information put out to the public by his spokesman.

    Bob

  74. avatar
    Scientist April 26, 2011 at 8:43 am #

    Robert Clark: It is incumbent on the Hawaii Atty. Gen. to correct that false information put out to the public by his spokesman.

    Are you holding your breath? Feeling dizzy yet?

  75. avatar
    Scientist April 26, 2011 at 8:52 am #

    Robert Clark: Bob

    Please stop bothering us. Contact the Attorney General and take it up with him
    http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/contact_dept/main/forms/general_responses

    Doc, I think this poster should not be allowed to endlessly repeat the same points and monopolize this board, No one here is the Hawaii AG nor has any influence over him. If this poster has an issue with the AG, he should take it up with him directly. This is not the place to air a private dspute.

  76. avatar
    Robert Clark April 26, 2011 at 8:57 am #

    Scientist: Are you holding your breath?Feeling dizzy yet?

    I rather suspect it will be soon. Hawaii state senator Sam Slom was asked in a radio interview about the claim that a person in Hawaii could not get a copy of their own long form birth certificate. He said he didn’t believe that was true. Now this CNN report confirms it is not true. My guess is that Hawaii Sen. Slom will make calls to ensure that false information put out by his states highest law enforcement office is corrected.

    Hawaii senator questions Obama’s true birth father
    ‘There is information, for reasons known only to him, he doesn’t want released’
    Posted: April 24, 2011
    3:20 pm Eastern
    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=291041

    Bob

  77. avatar
    Robert Clark April 26, 2011 at 9:03 am #

    Scientist: Please stop bothering us.Contact the Attorney General and take it up with him
    http://hawaii.gov/ag/main/contact_dept/main/forms/general_responses

    Doc, I think this poster should not be allowed to endlessly repeat the same points and monopolize this board,No one here is the Hawaii AG nor has any influence over him.If this poster has an issue with the AG, he should take it up with him directly.This is not the place to air a private dspute.

    If you keep questioning it, I am going to keep re-emphasizing it:

    The highest law enforcement office in Hawaii put out false information to the public that happens to protect Obama.

    That is a MAJORLY important fact. The overwhelmingly important question to ask is if the putting out of this false information was intentional or not. If it was, then that brings into question statements of other public officials in Hawaii, including Dr. Fukino.

    Bob

  78. avatar
    Scientist April 26, 2011 at 9:22 am #

    Robert Clark: Bob

    Take it up with the AG. No one here can help you.

    Robert Clark: That is a MAJORLY important fact. The overwhelmingly important question

    No, overwhelmingly important questions involve life and death. This is a MINORLY unimportant matter of underwhelming significance. It is less than a gnat to an elephant. It is a not even as the smallest molehill is to Mount Everest.

  79. avatar
    Suranis April 26, 2011 at 9:58 am #

    Robert Clark: If you keep questioning it, I am going to keep re-emphasizing it:

    The highest law enforcement office in Hawaii put out false information to the public that happens to protect Obama.

    That is a MAJORLY important fact. The overwhelmingly important question to ask is if the putting out of this false information was intentional or not. If it was, then that brings into question statements of other public officials in Hawaii, including Dr. Fukino

    If you are talking about Albercombie saying that he was told no further information could be released without President Obama’s consent, that nothing specificly to do with a long form

    You have been shown Hawai’in law that shows they don’t have to release a long form.

    And the CNN report just said they could REQUEST a photocopy of their vital records through an FOIA request, but that would not be a birth certificate. It would have no legal value. The definition of a request is that they can say no if the rules don’t allow it as per HRS 338-18, which deals with disclosure of documents.

    Robert Clark: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=291041

    This is the same WND that said Gov Albercombie said there was no record of President Obama in the state archive, when he actually said it was in the state archive right?

    Regardless, IF the Senetor actually said that, then the guy is wrong, since there has been no long forms released since 2001.

  80. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 10:00 am #

    Robert Clark: As has been confirmed by the CNN report, the obvious interpretation of that passage in the law is the correct one: the state must release a copy of the original long form birth certificate if the person requests it.Bob

    What??? Are you daft? Having to do the HI FOIA process is NOT following standard procedure. They explained that is the EXCEPTION process someone could use if they weren’t happy being told no and still wanted to request it.

    You would NOT get a certified copy of the “long form” if the requestor went the FOIA route, just an uncertified photocopy, which is not acceptable in most places as an official document and therefore, fairly useless for ID verifcation purposes. It was also stated that the HI DOH discourages people from doing such requests, which makes sense. They want people to follow their official procedures and get official forms.

    If you need a CERTIFIED copy, the ONLY thing they give you is the COLB.

    You still have not explained WHY any sane person in their right mind would NEED to go through that FOIA process when they have their official state certified COLB already. There is NO sane NOR practical reason why Obama would stop what he’s doing and waste his time going out of his way for that.

  81. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 10:03 am #

    Robert Clark: My point is the news media is not applying that level of skepticism that would be applied to any other politician. For any other POLITICIAN they would ask the obvious question: why are you hiding this document that ought to be completely harmless?Bob

    ??? You make no sense. Your mind does not think rationally. You come across like a bizarre paranoid delusional.

    He is NOT hiding anything. He already requested his certified BC several years ago and HAS the OFFICIAL CERTIFIED COLB. That answers ALL relevant questions in regards to NBC. End of story.

    You use the words “completely harmless” when it should read “completely USELESS”.

    There is NO sensible reason to go through some personal FOIA exception battle to try to get that form that they don’t typically give out and which serves NO official purpose NOR does it provide ANY info of value that isn’t already on the COLB.

  82. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 10:06 am #

    Robert Clark: Who cares? The spokesman for the highest law enforcement office in the state put out incorrect information on the law to the public. That incorrect information is now being repeated on different news sites.It is incumbent on the Hawaii Atty. Gen. to correct that false information put out to the public by his spokesman.Bob

    You keep repeating this LIE. Saying a LIE over and over again does not make it so.

    You have been called out on this constantly to provide any evidence that the AG ever said what you claim he did, yet you refuse to do so.

    Based on your past history and refusal to provide evidence of what you say, I’m calling you out as a LIAR on this as well.

    I’ve seen NO evidence that the AG ever made the claims you keep talking about.

    Provide proof. Put up or shut up.

  83. avatar
    Suranis April 26, 2011 at 10:11 am #

    I should point out above that I have no idea about FAOI law and how that would interact with Hawai’in law on the disclosure of documents.

  84. avatar
    Robert Clark April 26, 2011 at 2:37 pm #

    G: You keep repeating this LIE.Saying a LIE over and over again does not make it so.

    You have been called out on this constantly to provide any evidence that the AG ever said what you claim he did, yet you refuse to do so.

    I have repeatedly.

    Bob

  85. avatar
    Robert Clark April 26, 2011 at 2:45 pm #

    Suranis: If you are talking about Albercombie saying that he was told no further information could be released without President Obama’s consent, that nothing specificly to do with a long form

    I was referring to this:

    Ex-Hawaii official denounces ‘ludicrous’ birther claims.
    Comments follow statements by Donald Trump questioning legitimacy of president’s birth record.
    By Michael Isikoff National investigative correspondent
    NBC News NBC News
    updated 4/11/2011 10:59:35 AM ET

    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.

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

    That is flat out contradicted by what was revealed in the CNN report. You can a copy of your long form birth certificate if you request it.

    Bob

  86. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 3:07 pm #

    Robert Clark: I have repeatedly.Bob

    Where??? LIAR!

    You keep dodging and making this claim of AG statements on multiple threads. On ALL of them, I’ve been repeatedly asking you for evidence of this statement.

    As of yet, I have still not seen ONE single link of proof by you.

    If you claim you have, than it should be easy enough for you to just show it instead of talk about it. You should be able to just as easily link to the comment on here where you’ve provided that already.

    Put up or shut up, Bob. Stop being so dishonest.

  87. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 3:13 pm #

    Robert Clark: That is flat out contradicted by what was revealed in the CNN report. You can a copy of your long form birth certificate if you request it.
    Bob

    That is NOT contradicted at all by the CNN report.

    The CNN report was very direct in saying that the state of HI only provides ONE certified form – the COLB. That is consistent.

    The CNN report mentioned that they found A WAY for someone to request a copy of their “original” and stated that it required someone to file a HI FOIA, but that takes a lot of time to process and that the state of HI strongly discourages people from doing so and that only 1 such request was made within the past year – from a HI birther AND that the form you can get from the FOIA is NOT a CERTIFIED COPY.

    So, if you can’t understand that having to file a FOIA request to access your info is NOT part of their standard procedures and is quite an extensive end-around to the actual official process, than you are truly a moron.

  88. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy April 26, 2011 at 4:07 pm #

    G: The CNN report mentioned that they found A WAY for someone to request a copy of their “original” and stated that it required someone to file a HI FOIA, but that takes a lot of time to process and that the state of HI strongly discourages people from doing so and that only 1 such request was made within the past year – from a HI birther AND that the form you can get from the FOIA is NOT a CERTIFIED COPY.

    I have no doubts that this is the current policy. However, it is not stated how long this has been the policy. It may be that until recently, the DoH would issue a certified copy of the long form upon special request, and the one the birthers cheered was the single one issued in the past year reported by CNN.

  89. avatar
    Judge Mental April 26, 2011 at 4:35 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I have no doubts that this is the current policy. However, it is not stated how long this has been the policy. It may be that until recently, the DoH would issue a certified copy of the long form upon special request, and the one the birthers cheered was the single one issued in the past year reported by CNN.

    Maybe someone will now ask both Danae and Miki if the images they posted concern documents obtained under a Hawaii FOIA request.

  90. avatar
    G April 26, 2011 at 5:05 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: I have no doubts that this is the current policy. However, it is not stated how long this has been the policy. It may be that until recently, the DoH would issue a certified copy of the long form upon special request, and the one the birthers cheered was the single one issued in the past year reported by CNN.

    Yeah, there is still quite a bit of fuzziness around that. I’m glad we’ve gotten this new tid-bit of clarification and I’m sure we’ll get even more both tonight and as this issue plays out in the future.

    However, since I view the “long form” as nothing but a red-herring sideshow distraction (once it became clear that the COLB info came from it and that the “long form” could add NOTHING to the NBC issue), I don’t “lose any sleep” regarding the lack of clarity we’ve had on what byzantine process someone must go through to get to see one.

    So, just to be clear, I don’t want anyone to be confused and mistake my merely liking getting additional answers on these particular “fuzzy” details with supporting release of the “long form” at all, or even feeling that I needed to know such details of how to bypass the standard system in the first place.

    As additional clarity comes forward, hey that’s great as I’m all for learning and getting better info… I just think the birthers make too much utterly Concern Troll “hay” of the “long form” argument, which is in the end, a completely irrelevant issue.

    What I’m getting at is that if I were Obama, even if I learned that I can now go through the hoops of filing a FOIA to get a copy, I wouldn’t waste the time doing so and would be offended by anyone who demanded that I do so and not accept the COLB as what it is. I also think it would be set a bad precedent for him to go through excessive steps to get additional unnecessary documents as verification, instead of just present the COLB whenever it is asked, just as anyone else normally would.

    Otherwise, you undermine the whole legitimacy and purpose of what the COLB is intended for in the first place. Plus, you are just pandering to crazy and excessive demands in doing so. Reminds me of something that gets said on here from time to time: “Don’t feed the Trolls”.