Main Menu

Everything is about the birth certificate

or so it would seem if you read Birther Report or WorldNetDaily.

NBC News anchor Brian Williams has been suspended for 6 months for misrepresenting his exploits in Iraq and when reporting on hurricane Katrina. There is speculation as to whether he will return to the NBC Nightly News anchor slot after his suspension or whether someone will take over that job permanently. Several names are mentioned for a replacement:

  • Lester Holt
  • Savannah Guthrie
  • Matt Lauer
  • Jake Tapper
  • Katie Couric
  • Jon Stewart 😯

WorldNetDaily focused on the number 2 slot, Savannah Guthrie, who was NBC White House Correspondent on that fateful day, April 27, 2011, when the White House released President Obama’s long form birth certificate in an early morning press briefing, followed later in the day by a nationally-televised address by the President to say that “we don’t have time for this silliness.” Guthrie appeared on the NBC Nightly News that evening and reported that she had personally handled the birth certificate and “felt the raised seal” that is somewhat difficult to see in the photo she took with her phone and tweeted.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Outside the small world of birther activists and their detractors, Guthrie’s role in the birth certificate story is insignificant, but for those who focus on these issues, Guthrie stands as a testimony to the fact that a significant part of birther conspiracy theories is a lie.

Now WorldNetDaily jumps in with a remarkable article titled, “Obama’s birth certificate to sink Brian Williams’ ‘replacement’?” The article had what appears to be one significant lie attributed to Mike Zullo:

[Zullo] pointed out that, according to former White House attorney Bob Bauer – a Perkins Coie attorney before coming to the White House – Obama never even handled the document.

What Pfeiffer [not Bauer] said was that Obama wouldn’t be holding the certificate during the press conference.

The article itself says not a word to suggest that Guthrie’s birth certificate story will have any effect whatsoever in NBC’s selection of a replacement for Williams, but only talks about Guthrie’s reporting on the certificate, and some remarks from Mike Zullo stating that there is “no evidence of a raised seal,” despite everybody else being able to barely see it on the Guthrie photo. The suggestion, as we so often see at WND, is left to the headline and to the readers’ imagination.

, , , , ,

102 Responses to Everything is about the birth certificate

  1. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2015 at 10:23 am #

    Birther Logic is damned screwy, but I think the train of thought is something along the lines of this:

    “This thing has a very small chance of happening, but we will make it sound like its the most likely outcome, that way when it doesn’t happen, we can say its because of Obama’s birth certificate is a fake, and we win!”

  2. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 12, 2015 at 10:27 am #

    The article had what appears to be one significant lie attributed to Mike Zullo:

    [Zullo] pointed out that, according to former White House attorney Bob Bauer – a Perkins Coie attorney before coming to the White House – Obama never even handled the document.

    I fail to see the point anyway. What does it matter if Obama ever “handled the document” or not? Notably, if he did, birthers would immediately claim he switched the real one for the forgery when nobody was looking.

  3. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 12, 2015 at 10:28 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: but we will make it sound like its the most likely outcome, that way when it doesn’t happen, we can say its because of Obama’s birth certificate is a fake

    Like how they get their panties in a knot whenever someone even remotely “associated” (very loosely speaking) with the BC issue resigns – it always has to be because of the BC and because the big birther day of victory is any day now.

  4. avatar
    Kate February 12, 2015 at 10:31 am #

    Orly also believes that a letter she wrote to Richard Esposito, who she refers to as an NBC investigations manager, has caused concern regarding promoting Savannah Guthrie. Apparently, she thinks the letter she wrote 2 days ago, influenced a decision yesterday that has NBC seeking someone other than Guthrie. Could her ego be any more overinflated than it is? She claims that Guthrie lied about seeing the seal and because she was the “only one allowed to handle the birth certificate put out by the White House” she was promoted to the Today Show as a morning anchor.

    Mary Jewell from the Dallas Examiner also repeated Orly’s lies about Guthrie being the only person able to handle or even view the LFBC at the press conference, along with the nonsense about it not having a visible seal. I’ve seen the name Jewell linked with Orly before, IIRC.

    I remember seeing video from the conference that showed several people looking at the LFBC and handling it, standing with Guthrie, easily debunking Orly’s lies. She’ll never give up using whatever she can to try to smear the President, no matter how easily it is proven false.

  5. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2015 at 10:41 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Like how they get their panties in a knot whenever someone even remotely “associated” (very loosely speaking) with the BC issue resigns – it always has to be because of the BC and because the big birther day of victory is any day now.

    They even somehow see John Stewart leaving the Daily Show as a sign that they’re winning.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2015 at 10:45 am #

    Link?

    Kate: I remember seeing video from the conference that showed several people looking at the LFBC and handling it, standing with Guthrie, easily debunking Orly’s lies. She’ll never give up using whatever she can to try to smear the President, no matter how easily it is proven false.

  7. avatar
    HistorianDude February 12, 2015 at 10:59 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy… some remarks from Mike Zullo stating that there is “no evidence of a raised seal,” despite everybody else being able to barely see it on the Guthrie photo.

    And let’s not forget that the seal is also visible on the Whitehouse.gov PDF.

  8. avatar
    Lupin February 12, 2015 at 11:00 am #

    Additional proof as if we needed it that Zullo is lower than pond scum.

  9. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 11:29 am #

    HistorianDude: And let’s not forget that the seal is also visible on the Whitehouse.gov PDF.

    The seal has virtually disappeared on the PDF although you can see a remanent of the seal. On Guthrie’s photos the seal looks very very “sick” almost like a watermark. Either Guthrie’s Camera is the WORST photo quality camera known to exist or the seal is not a real seal.

  10. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2015 at 11:32 am #

    Yes, that is one of the many things about the birther forgery theories that doesn’t make sense.

    Zullo’s argument is that a normal image should show the seal clearly. Birthers further say that Obama’s certificate was pieced together from parts of other certificates. If both are true then the seal should be prominent on the Obama certificate from whatever certificate part was used to make it. And if the security paper background was wholly fabricated from real security paper, then there would be no seal at all, and there would be no halos either.

    HistorianDude: And let’s not forget that the seal is also visible on the Whitehouse.gov PDF.

  11. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 11:56 am #

    Very few comtemporary Hawaii Long Form Birth Certificates are out there. But those that I can find, the seal is far more profound that it is on Obama’s:

    http://www.keepandshare.com/userpics/r/i/c/k/off/2011-
    04/sm/edith_coats_1962_hawaiian_colb-47062008.jpg

    The Coats birth certificate – The seal is much more profound.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/legacy_assets/articles/assets/FigureMP3%20comp.jpg

    This birth certificate is highly damaged – The seal is quite visible.

    Ah’Nee’s Birth Certificate = http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-d3BgjlAoAqU/TpJGN_dqGAI/AAAAAAAAAEE/NMs7SQP6BDc/s1600/090811AuthenticBC+Original.jpg

    Seal is quite visible.

    http://logisticsmonster.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/MikiBoothBC.jpg

    Miki’s birth certificate is similar to Obama’s BC in seal visibility but it is 30 years old and the her birth certificate is of slightly different construction.

    Please bear in mind that Obama’s birth certificate was 2 days old when Guthrie snapped a picture of it showing the seal.

    Either Guthrie’s camera is WORST camera in the world or the seal on Obama’s birth certificate is fake.

  12. avatar
    Rickey February 12, 2015 at 12:03 pm #

    john:

    Either Guthrie’s camera is WORST camera in the world or the seal on Obama’s birth certificate is fake.

    Since in your mind those are the only two choices, it is obvious that Guthrie had a terrible camera.

    Of course, in the real world it has a lot to do with lighting, the angle at which the birth certificate is photographed, as well as the quality of the camera and the skill of the person taking the photograph.

  13. avatar
    John Reilly February 12, 2015 at 12:07 pm #

    And John continues to believe that a document which Hawaii says is genuine is false.

    Way to go John.

    And ignore WND’s man on the scene, Les Kinsolving, who verified the birth certificate.

    No need to confuse yourself with the truth.

  14. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2015 at 12:21 pm #

    john: Very few comtemporary Hawaii Long Form Birth Certificates

    John, all of the examples you presented are from the 1990’s or earlier. Any chance that they are using a different type seal today? Maybe a seal that is deliberately made not to be prominent so it can not be photocopied?

    Let’s look at certificates produced recently

    Sunahara’s is not very prominent:

    http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/09/SUNAHARA-short-form-COLB.jpg

    Stig Waidelich’s not very prominent:

    https://rcradioblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/waidelich-birth-certificate.jpg

    Danae’s from Free Republic not very prominent:

    http://s56.photobucket.com/user/Danae_photos/media/SCN_0002.jpg.html

    Johann Ahnee’s daughter’s 2011 LFBC, not very prominent:

    http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/041111b-c5.jpg

  15. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2015 at 12:35 pm #

    john: Very few comtemporary Hawaii Long Form Birth Certificates are out there

    Here is another one with a weak seal from 2010:

    http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/7047/newhawaiicolbfull.jpg

    And another one:

    https://nobarack08.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/another-hawaiian-bc.jpg

    Weak seals seems to be the norm.

  16. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 12, 2015 at 12:54 pm #

    Not really. My birth certificate has a prominent seal, and I have a very good camera. The seal’s visibility depends on the lighting. Same for scanning.

    john: Either Guthrie’s Camera is the WORST photo quality camera known to exist or the seal is not a real seal.

  17. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 1:05 pm #

    All the birth certificate seals are much clearer than Obama’s. Stig’s birth certificate image is very very poor far worse than Guthrie’s. The Johann Ahnee’s Daughter 2011 LFBC is of special interest, it catches Alvin Onaka in a lie because according to policy sanctioned by Onaka in 2001, Long form birth certificates are no longer being released but Onaka does appear to be releasing them, so his credibility is in question. This also flies in the face that Hawaii DOH denied the brother access to Sundahara’s Long Form as they did Terry Lakin’s daughter but apparently Johann Ahnee’s daughter was able to get one. Since these cases were politically and contraversly motivated, it would appear that the Hawaii DOH including Alvin Onaka are corrupt. Its yet another reason why their word simply cannot trusted of what they say in this matter.

  18. avatar
    Jim February 12, 2015 at 1:08 pm #

    john: The seal has virtually disappeared on the PDF although you can see a remanent of the seal. On Guthrie’s photos the seal looks very very “sick” almost like a watermark. Either Guthrie’s Camera is the WORST photo quality camera known to exist or the seal is not a real seal.

    OMG john…YOU’VE GOT IT!!! And all those photos of people with red eyes are acually not people but VAMPIRES!!! You’re understanding of cameras and pictures is almost as good as your understanding of birth certificates…did you even pass the 6th grade?

  19. avatar
    Reality Check February 12, 2015 at 1:09 pm #

    Embossed seals do not scan, photograph, or copy well at all. It is because they are designed not to be copied, photographed, or scanned. D’oh.

  20. avatar
    Northland10 February 12, 2015 at 1:22 pm #

    John, since I don’t have time to wait for you to start claiming the image is fake because of the bluish tint on a green cert, here is the response in advance.

    Take a look at pictures of the press room. Lots of blue (chairs, walls, carpet, birthers).

  21. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2015 at 1:29 pm #

    john: it catches Alvin Onaka in a lie because according to policy sanctioned by Onaka in 2001, Long form birth certificates are no longer being released but Onaka does appear to be releasing them

    No John it doesn’t because Hawaii has always treated people of Hawaiian descent differently. Hawaii descendance is a big deal in Hawaii.

    john: All the birth certificate seals are much clearer than Obama’s

    So now you are talking about a matter of degrees.

    Remember, John that on the scanned image of the President’s short form BC that was first posted on the web, the seal could only be seen by adjusting the contrast. But for the same document when photographed the seal was quite prominent.

  22. avatar
    john February 12, 2015 at 1:33 pm #

    Actually the most important birth certificate of all is Johann Ahnee’s daughter’s issued in 2011. It destroys Alvin Onaka’s credibility. Onaka claimed policy was set forth in 2001 that would eliminate the issue of long form birth certificates but here we have Onaka issuing one in March of 2011. Further, the birth certificate is not a copy but is the original which raises the question on why Obama’s original wasn’t released and he only got a copy and also the fact the Hawaii DOH is custodian to the original copies meaning the own them and not the individual. Finally, it also doesn’t explain why Terry Lakin and Virginia Sundahara were denied issue except for the fact that those issue requests were political and contraversal in nature which would suggest corruption on the part of Hawaii. Unless the Obots can prove that birth certificate in a forgery, Hawaii’s credibility is shot.

  23. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2015 at 1:46 pm #

    john: Further, the birth certificate is not a copy but is the original

    No, it is not the original, those are printed on white paper. It is a copy printed onto green security paper just as the President’s.

    Also she is part-Hawaiian which is very important issue in Hawaii.

    Sunahra and Lakin’s children are not part-Hawaiian.

  24. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 12, 2015 at 1:53 pm #

    john: Actually the most important birth certificate of all is Johann Ahnee’s daughter’s issued in 2011.

    Hawaii homelands program.

    Also its not exactly clear that is from 2011 and not 2001. But I notice you being unable to answer people’s questions you’re now jumping to another claim.

  25. avatar
    Punchmaster via Mobile February 12, 2015 at 1:55 pm #

    You’d think john would tire of making a complete fool of himself, but no. He never does.

  26. avatar
    Arthur B. February 12, 2015 at 2:03 pm #

    john: Unless the Obots can prove that birth certificate in a forgery, Hawaii’s credibility is shot.

    John, have you given any thought to how your opinion of Hawaii’s credibility might stack up against the Full Faith & Credit clause of the Constitution?

  27. avatar
    Reality Check February 12, 2015 at 2:46 pm #

    Johanna Ah’Nee’s daughter? What are you talking about?

    john: Actually the most important birth certificate of all is Johann Ahnee’s daughter’s issued in 2011.

  28. avatar
    gorefan February 12, 2015 at 3:11 pm #

    Reality Check:
    Johanna Ah’Nee’s daughter? What are you talking about?

    Some time ago it was suggested that this BC was Johanna Ah’nee’s daughter’s BC.

    http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/041111b-c5.jpg

    The reason is the race of the mother (see below), the age of the mother (born in 1961) and the mother’s birthplace (Honolulu, Hawaii). Both this BC and Johanna’s were given to WND by Miki Booth. And there is this statement from John Woodman’s blog (based on his conversation with Ah’Nee),

    “In any event, “Hawaii Girl” was able to be even more specific. She stated that her mother’s background was “Hawaiian / Korean / German / English,” and her father’s background was “Hawaiian / Chinese / Portuguese.” I had not known about the German and Portuguese parts.”

    Based on that statement, Johanna’s race would be Hawaiian/Korean/Chinese/German/English/Portuguese. Which is the mother’s race listed on the WND. Ergo

  29. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 12, 2015 at 3:35 pm #

    Is there a technical term for when someone does nothing but present grasped straws as “valid” arguments? If not, we should call it “johning”.
    He’s already stated that he thinks this is all for naught, so I honestly don’t see why he keeps trying to somehow “win” on a technicality.

  30. avatar
    Reality Check February 12, 2015 at 4:08 pm #

    So John is willing to say it is Johanna Ah’Nee’s daughter’s based on very flimsy evidence. Why am I not surprised? I can’t read the date stamp. It looks like it could be either 2001 or 2011.

    .

    gorefan: Some time ago it was suggested that this BC was Johanna Ah’nee’s daughter’s BC.

    http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/041111b-c5.jpg

  31. avatar
    Kate February 13, 2015 at 12:17 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Link?

    I’ll see if I have it on my old laptop, thought I had transferred everything to this one but it’s not here.

  32. avatar
    John Reilly February 13, 2015 at 12:41 am #

    So yesterday we were working on parsing Mr. Nash’s theory. As best I could tell, the only way to be a natural born citizen is to have two citizen parents. And, I think Mr. Nash is sort of insistent that both parents be white. Or at least Republican. That’s how he translates the French Vattel used. “Parens” apparently means two white people who are committed to voting for Martine Le Pen.

    Now John today has a whole different approach. To be eligible you have to be 35, lived here a bunch of years (although maybe Eisenhower is exempt from that rule), and natural born. And you have to have a raised seal on your birth certificate. (Except if you’re Ted Cruz.) A raised seal prominent enough that it can be seen from space. With the naked eye. Being seen by witnesses, like Les Kinsolving of WND (you would think his credentials were impeccable) on the scene is not good enough.

    I’m puzzled. Is that a farm raise seal or will a wild seal do? Can it be a raised dolphin? Is this a harbor seal or a harp seal?

    Nope. Because the seal is not as visible as some others, it does not qualify. The Constitution clearly sets out the requirements for the raised seal in detail like they were written by an electrical engineer laying out the specs for a computer chip.

    I saw “Selma” a few days ago. John’s seal test is much like the demand that the Black woman seeking to vote must name the judges in Alabama. All of them. John is a direct descendant of those white registrars.

  33. avatar
    Benji Franklin February 13, 2015 at 12:58 am #

    Andrew Vrba, PmG: Is there a technical term for when someone does nothing but present grasped straws as “valid” arguments? If not, we should call it “johning”.

    There is not, but “johning” is already taken by the prostitute profession.

    However, “John-a-long-a ding-donging” is still available!

  34. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 13, 2015 at 1:00 am #

    Benji Franklin: However, “John-a-long-a ding-donging” is still available!

    I rather like that. It’s a bit Jerry Lewis-y.

  35. avatar
    Lupin February 13, 2015 at 2:33 am #

    John Reilly: So yesterday we were working on parsing Mr. Nash’s theory. As best I could tell, the only way to be a natural born citizen is to have two citizen parents. And, I think Mr. Nash is sort of insistent that both parents be white. Or at least Republican. That’s how he translates the French Vattel used. “Parens” apparently means two white people who are committed to voting for Martine Le Pen.

    In fairness, I think Mr Nash is very much to the right of Mrs Le Pen; a lot of our Front National platform (as it were) is arguably esp. (economically) to the LEFT of your own Republican party.

    Obama is arguably to the right of Nicolas Sarkozy (UMP Party) as he is to the right of David Cameron.

    I say “arguably” because it depends on whether one focuses on economics, social values, foreign policy, etc.

    The US has moved so far to the right of the spectrum usually in force in western democratic nations that what you appear to have is a moderate right-wing party (the democrats) and an extreme far right party (the Republicans). There is no Left left anywhere in US politics as far as i can tell.

    To return to Mr Nash, one of the things that struck me as really indefensible about his position is his willingness to apply 18th century Laws as such to a 20th century situation, ignoring what happened in between in those countries which started with these laws he’s all too happy to borrow.

  36. avatar
    john February 13, 2015 at 12:37 pm #

    Reality Check:
    So John is willing to say it is Johanna Ah’Nee’s daughter’s based on very flimsy evidence. Why am I not surprised? I can’t read the date stamp. It looks like it could be either 2001 or 2011.

    . Sure, you can dismiss it RC but you still have Danae receiving a Long Form Birth Certificate from Hawaii. It was uncertified but according to Danae Alvin Onaka himself was prepared to certify it. (As to why it wasn’t certified is unknown) The issue of Long Form Birth Certificates was stopped in 2001 by policy which was sanctioned by Alvin Onaka. The Hawaii Homelands Program did issue Long Form Birth Certificates but their policy was changed in 2009 to cover for Obama. So Alvin Onaka’s credibility is shady at best. That’s why the verification of births are useless and not worth the paper they are written on. Further, If Danae and Ah’Nee were able to get Long Form Birth Certificates, why wasn’t Terry Lakin or Virginia Sundahara’s brother able to get their’s. Make no sense. And if Alvin Onaka was “Secretly” certifying Long Form Birth Certificates, why did Obama even need a waiver in the first place. Hawaii’s credibility is too tainted be given any authority over the birth certificate. The Vault needs to be opened and the birth certificate needs to be independently and comtemporaly verified.

    Finally, even if Hawaii did release a non-certified copy to Danae, why release it to her in the first place. According to Danae, she needed for genelogical reasons. If that is so, the information on the Long Form Birth Certificate is USELESS. Why? Because there is no certification. Sure, it can for person information use, but to verify any legally or geogloigcally, the birth certificate is non certified. It has no seal and has not been verified by the State Register.

  37. avatar
    Reality Check February 13, 2015 at 1:38 pm #

    I am not dismissing the mystery certificate, It looks like it might have been issued in 2011. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. You continue to doubt the authenticity of the President’s long form and short form certificates yet you put up a highly redacted, fuzzy image of a BC from an unknown person posted on a website with an axe to grind as evidence of something.

    Also, the law and DoH regulations in Hawaii permit the state to determine what is issued in the form a birth certificate. Neither Alvin Onaka, Loretta Fuddy, nor her predecessor have done anything unethical or outside the rules.

    john: Sure, you can dismiss it RC but you still have Danae receiving a Long Form Birth Certificate from Hawaii.

  38. avatar
    Reality Check February 13, 2015 at 1:50 pm #

    What has fascinated me is the warped logic Birthers like Apuzzo have to use to get from the Roman – European system of citizenship passing down from the father to include both parents. As I understand it they maintain that as woman gained the right to separate citizenship distinct from the citizenship of their husbands and the right of suffrage that somehow the rules magically transformed to include the mother and the father.

    Equality for women would of course mean an equal right to transfer citizenship to a child. That is exactly what happened in the US. When women gained separate citizenship and the right to vote they also gained the right to confer citizenship through birth even when the child was born abroad.

    Lupin: To return to Mr Nash, one of the things that struck me as really indefensible about his position is his willingness to apply 18th century Laws as such to a 20th century situation, ignoring what happened in between in those countries which started with these laws he’s all too happy to borrow.

  39. avatar
    bob February 13, 2015 at 2:00 pm #

    Rickey: Since in your mind those are the only two choices, it is obvious that Guthrie had a terrible camera.

    Of course, in the real world it has a lot to do with lighting, the angle at which the birth certificate is photographed, as well as the quality of the camera and the skill of the person taking the photograph.

    Allow me to offer another possibility: The photographer gave no fucks for the opinion of anklebiters like john. Because anklebiters like john will never, ever be satisfied.

  40. avatar
    Arthur B. February 13, 2015 at 2:05 pm #

    john: Hawaii’s credibility is too tainted be given any authority over the birth certificate.

    Once more, john, you are speaking of your opinion of Hawaii’s credibility. But from a legal point of view, the fact that you consider it “tainted” carries absolutely no weight.

    As others have asked, why are you so quick to ditch the Constitution in favor of your personal opinions? Is the Constitution something to be respected only when it fits your agenda?

  41. avatar
    john February 13, 2015 at 2:54 pm #

    Reality Check:
    I am not dismissing the mystery certificate, It looks like it might have been issued in 2011. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. You continue to doubt the authenticity of the President’s long form and short form certificates yet you put up a highly redacted, fuzzy image of a BC from an unknown person posted on a website with an axe to grind as evidence of something.

    Also, the law and DoH regulations in Hawaii permit the state to determine what is issued in the form a birth certificate. Neither Alvin Onaka, Loretta Fuddy, nor her predecessor have done anything unethical or outside the rules.

    That may be true but it doesn’t explain why Terry Lakin, Miki Booth, and Virginia Sundahara were denied access to their long form birth certificates. What’s Alvin Onaka “Secretly” issuing long form birth certificates when the policy was changed in 2001 to no longer permit that. You also have to consider the persons mentioned are “Birthers” an highly dirogetory term especially for the folks in Hawaii. This would imply that Alvin Onaka and others were engaging in discrimination or political corruptness to deny access to those individuals. Clearly under the law, the individuals mentioned have every right access to the long form birth certificate. We know that Onaka, Fuddy, and others are “Corrupt” and therefore they can’t trusted with any realability.

  42. avatar
    john February 13, 2015 at 2:59 pm #

    Arthur B.: Once more, john, you are speaking of your opinion of Hawaii’s credibility. But from a legal point of view, the fact that you consider it “tainted” carries absolutely no weight.

    As others have asked, why are you so quick to ditch the Constitution in favor of your personal opinions? Is the Constitution something to be respected only when it fits your agenda?

    It seems clear the Danae and AH’nee were not considered “Birthers” by Hawaii and therefore were granted access. Others like Miki Booth and Terry Lakin were considered “Birthers”. As such they were discriminated against because Hawaii was discriminating against persons by way political beliefs (Being a Birther is a political belief) which is a protected group. I suppose in a suit, Hawaii have show some other reason to deny Lakin and Booth but allow Danae Ah’Nee other than they are birthers.

  43. avatar
    Reality Check February 13, 2015 at 3:05 pm #

    Onaka didn’t secretly certify anything. What you miss is that in the case of Ahnee’s daughter (if that is who it is), Danae, and Barack Obama they were obtaining their own certificate.

    You comment about Hawaii being “tainted” is just plainly stupid.

    john: And if Alvin Onaka was “Secretly” certifying Long Form Birth Certificates, why did Obama even need a waiver in the first place. Hawaii’s credibility is too tainted be given any authority over the birth certificate.

  44. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG February 13, 2015 at 3:11 pm #

    Here’s my prediction for this thread.
    Anti-Constitutional pundit john will continue painting himself into a corner, with flimsy arguments that other posters will destroy with ease. john will find their rebuttals increasingly harder to deflect, before finally abandoning the thread.

  45. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 13, 2015 at 3:46 pm #

    Danae told me in an email that she talked to Onaka and that he asked her whether she needed a certified copy. She told him no, and that’s why the copy wasn’t certified. She needed to have some documentation of the birthplace of her parents. It was not for a legal purpose.

    john: Finally, even if Hawaii did release a non-certified copy to Danae, why release it to her in the first place. According to Danae, she needed for genelogical reasons. If that is so, the information on the Long Form Birth Certificate is USELESS. Why? Because there is no certification. Sure, it can for person information use, but to verify any legally or geogloigcally, the birth certificate is non certified. It has no seal and has not been verified by the State Register.

  46. avatar
    bob February 13, 2015 at 4:15 pm #

    john: It seems clear the Danae and AH’nee were not considered “Birthers” by Hawaii and therefore were granted access.Others like Miki Booth and Terry Lakin were considered “Birthers”.As such they were discriminated against because Hawaii was discriminating against persons by way political beliefs (Being a Birther is a political belief)which is a protected group.I suppose in a suit, Hawaii have show some other reason to deny Lakin and Booth but allow Danae Ah’Nee other than they are birthers.

    Among the things john gets wrong is his idea that political beliefs are a protected class.

    If Lakin and Booth think they’ve been discriminated against, why haven’t they sued Hawaii?

    Oh: Duncan Sunahara filed a Trojan birther suit seeking his sister’s long form. The Hawaii courts upheld the health department’s decision to deny it to him.

  47. avatar
    john February 13, 2015 at 5:38 pm #

    bob: Among the things john gets wrong is his idea that political beliefs are a protected class.

    If Lakin and Booth think they’ve been discriminated against, why haven’t they sued Hawaii?

    Oh: Duncan Sunahara filed a Trojan birther suit seeking his sister’s long form.The Hawaii courts upheld the health department’s decision to deny it to him.

    Exactly right! and that’s the point. The brother was denied but Danae and Ah’Nee got theirs. The reasons Hawaii gave were ridiculous. First they said the documents were very very fragile and then they were arguing that it would have most intrusive, extremely difficult and with great great great hardship to provide the brother with a copy but here you have Alvin Onaka “Secretly” certifying or releasing long form birth certificates. (A procedure Alvin Onaka said he stopped in 2001 and which been a fundamental argument for Obots on why Obama couldn’t get his long form birth certificate.)

  48. avatar
    john February 13, 2015 at 5:42 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Danae told me in an email that she talked to Onaka and that he asked her whether she needed a certified copy. She told him no, and that’s why the copy wasn’t certified. She needed to have some documentation of the birthplace of her parents. It was not for a legal purpose.

    If the document wasn’t certified it meant it had no seal or stamp. The information is completely useless, No authentication and realability. State Health departments do release Non Certified copies but this purely for informational purposes only (Like if just wanted a sourvinere.) They have absolutely no useful purpose for any legal or official purpose.

  49. avatar
    bob February 13, 2015 at 7:30 pm #

    john: Exactly right!and that’s the point.The brother was denied but Danae and Ah’Nee got theirs.The reasons Hawaii gave were ridiculous.First they said the documents were very very fragile and then they were arguing that it would have most intrusive, extremely difficult and with great great great hardship to provide the brother with a copy but here you have Alvin Onaka “Secretly” certifying or releasing long form birth certificates. (A procedure Alvin Onaka said he stopped in 2001 and which been a fundamental argument for Obots on why Obama couldn’t get his long form birth certificate.)

    The fact that Duncan Sunahara’s lawsuit was rejected should be your first clue that your “logic” has no basis in reality. That you deem Hawaii’s actions to be “ridiculous” does not mean anyone is required to agree your conclusion. More importantly, your beliefs do not affect the validity of Hawaii’s certification in any court.

    HDOH’s general policy to no longer provide long forms has already been upheld in the courts. That a few exceptions to that policy have been granted does not mean anything is “suspect.”

    They have absolutely no useful purpose for any legal or official purpose.

    There are numerous instances in real life where one might be asked to produce an official document, yet the requestor does not require it to be certified. That you cannot imagine such a scenario does not mean they don’t exist.

  50. avatar
    Dave B. February 13, 2015 at 10:24 pm #

    Man, that’s just plain dumb.

    john: Finally, even if Hawaii did release a non-certified copy to Danae, why release it to her in the first place. According to Danae, she needed for genelogical reasons. If that is so, the information on the Long Form Birth Certificate is USELESS. Why? Because there is no certification. Sure, it can for person information use, but to verify any legally or geogloigcally, the birth certificate is non certified. It has no seal and has not been verified by the State Register.

  51. avatar
    Rickey February 13, 2015 at 10:41 pm #

    john: If the document wasn’t certified it meant it had no seal or stamp.The information is completely useless, No authentication and realability.State Health departments do release Non Certified copies but this purely for informational purposes only (Like if just wanted a sourvinere.)They have absolutely no useful purpose for any legal or official purpose.

    As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Many entities which require birth certificates do not insist that they be certified. I used to process annuity applications for life insurance companies and they accepted photocopies of birth certificates. And since most governmental agencies charge extra for certification, many people save a few bucks by opting for uncertified copies.

  52. avatar
    Keith February 13, 2015 at 11:04 pm #

    Rickey: And since most governmental agencies charge extra for certification, many people save a few bucks by opting for uncertified copies.

    Not only but also, if she just needed it, say, for her own private geniology file, she wouldn’t need it to be certified. She specifically said she didn’t need a certified copy when it was offered to her.

  53. avatar
    John Reilly February 13, 2015 at 11:58 pm #

    So today I learned from John that a Hawaii birth certificate is suspect if it is (a) certified, or (b) not-certified. Perhaps Mr. Nash could jump in and tell us that there is a third possibility besides certified and not-certified.

  54. avatar
    JPotter February 14, 2015 at 12:11 am #

    When the patternicity gets this predictable, the future seems preordained.

    Stewart gets my vote to helm a network newscast, but why would he want to?

  55. avatar
    y_p_w February 14, 2015 at 1:52 am #

    Reality Check:
    Embossed seals do not scan, photograph,or copy well at all. It is because they are designed not to be copied, photographed, or scanned. D’oh.

    Not sure that applies as a blanket statement. I’ve mentioned the versions of my kid’s birth certificate as well as our marriage certificates (got three different copies at three different times).

    My kid’s first BC copies have a seal that is razor sharp. I was present when the clerk prepared them, and he used a machine that sounded like an electric stapler. I’ve made numerous photocopies, the seal shows up in sharp relief. The seal is so precise that I’d think one could make a mold from the paper and still be able to read it.

    Now as a vital documents geek now (thanks to reading Dr C) I went out and got different copies. California is a state where a state agency is final custodian of vital records even though counties are tasked with collection, preparation, and initial archiving. The state Dept of Public Health recommends getting vital records from counties (and/or cities in limited cases) because their turnaround time is much faster.

    The BC copy from the county is actually quite sharp and shows up on scans easily. The several copies I got from the state have a barely recognizable embossed seal. I know it’s the Great Seal of California, but I can’t read the text and the image is fuzzy. That really doesn’t show up.

    I’ve also got those marriage certs. It’s a different agency and it’s supposed to be the same seal on all three. They vary from almost not there to yeah I can sort of read it.

    So, I’m not quite what I’m getting at other than there are too many variables to say that seals don’t reproduce well with images. Some of the seals I’ve seen are so sharply defined on the paper that they show up well in photos. Some really don’t. I suspect the one in Obama’s LFBC was the latter, and possibly because it was prepared with a hand press using inadequate force.

  56. avatar
    y_p_w February 14, 2015 at 2:16 am #

    Rickey: As usual, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    Many entities which require birth certificates do not insist that they be certified. I used to process annuity applications for life insurance companies and they accepted photocopies of birth certificates. And since most governmental agencies charge extra for certification, many people save a few bucks by opting for uncertified copies.

    I don’t know of many agencies that handle vital documents that offer non certified birth certificates. California has the infamous “informational copy”, but the state and local agencies claim it’s still a certified record even with that legend. It’s supposed to satisfy the state requirement that vital records are public, but to prevent people from using a record for identity theft. The informational records may be redacted. Michael Jackson’s death certificate released to the media was redacted for certain personal info, including his SSN. The seal is placed even on the informational copies.

    A lot of agencies and private companies will accept a photocopy of a certified copy. I know someone who had to submit proof that his marriage wasn’t a “green card marriage”. He and his wife had a child together, and their names were on the BC. Being the BC geek I am now, I asked if they wanted to see the certified doc on security paper, and apparently the photocopy was sufficient for USCIS.

  57. avatar
    Judge Mental February 14, 2015 at 4:25 am #

    john: If the document wasn’t certified it meant it had no seal or stamp.The information is completely useless, No authentication and realability.State Health departments do release Non Certified copies but this purely for informational purposes only (Like if just wanted a sourvinere.)They have absolutely no useful purpose for any legal or official purpose.

    The information on even an unstamped/unsealed copy long form certificate would have been of ‘some’ useful purpose to the Hawaian Homelands Program (DHHL). The benefits available from the DHHL to Native Hawaians are not restricted to people born in Hawaii. By asking for a birth certificate the DHHL weren’t actually trying to establish “where” an applicant was born in the first place….they were simply trying to establish what the “ancestry” of the applicant was, irrespective of where they were born.

    The DHHL investigations of ancestry necessitate them tracing back at least as far as grandparentage, often to greatgrandparentage and sometimes beyond that. For that reason, the sparse parentage information on a short form was simply less useful as a starting point for applications than the more extensive information often to be found on a long form (parents addresses, nationalities etc). They receive applications from people based on a variety of documentation, including in certain cases uncertified copies of various documents. What determines if the application is eventually approved is whether the necessary “ancestry” can be reasonably established by any available means. That doesn’t “always” involve a certified copy birth certificate of the applicant.

  58. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2015 at 9:32 am #

    Birthers as a whole seem not to be aware of the Law of the Excluded Middle:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

    John Reilly: So today I learned from John that a Hawaii birth certificate is suspect if it is (a) certified, or (b) not-certified. Perhaps Mr. Nash could jump in and tell us that there is a third possibility besides certified and not-certified.

  59. avatar
    faceman February 14, 2015 at 10:05 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Birthers as a whole seem not to be aware of the Law of the Excluded Middle:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

    Maybe it’s like the cat. It can be both forged and not forged at the same time. It’s just that birthers collapse the waveform by direct observation and constrain it to the single value ‘Forged’.

    Or maybe, in the words of Descartes, ‘I think, therefor its forged.’ (Yeah, I don’t think they know how to think, but they think they do. Er, Is there some Latin term for that kind of logical fallacy?)

    Or is it more like Catch 22? It’s whatever best suits their purpose at the time.

    Excuse me while I kiss the sky.

  60. avatar
    John Reilly February 14, 2015 at 10:22 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Birthers as a whole seem not to be aware of the Law of the Excluded Middle:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

    Birthers believe that the law of the excluded middle is one of those pesky laws signed by Pres. Obama which will become void upon his removal from office.

    Like the law of gravity.

  61. avatar
    Rickey February 14, 2015 at 10:36 am #

    y_p_w: I don’t know of many agencies that handle vital documents that offer non certified birth certificates.California has the infamous “informational copy”, but the state and local agencies claim it’s still a certified record even with that legend.It’s supposed to satisfy the state requirement that vital records are public, but to prevent people from using a record for identity theft.The informational records may be redacted.Michael Jackson’s death certificate released to the media was redacted for certain personal info, including his SSN.The seal is placed even on the informational copies.

    A lot of agencies and private companies will accept a photocopy of a certified copy.I know someone who had to submit proof that his marriage wasn’t a “green card marriage”.He and his wife had a child together, and their names were on the BC.Being the BC geek I am now, I asked if they wanted to see the certified doc on security paper, and apparently the photocopy was sufficient for USCIS.

    That is probably the case now, but there are still a lot of uncertified birth certificates floating around. I have one of my own which is not certified. It has a registrar’s signature, but no stamp.

    If Danae had ordered a COLB, under Hawaii’s current system it would automatically be certified. But since she was requesting her LFBC for genealogical purposes, she was given a choice having it certified or not. I’m guessing that she chose not certified because it cost her less.

  62. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 14, 2015 at 10:59 am #

    Obama’s father cannot be Barack Obama, Sr, Malcolm X, Frank Marshall Davis and the rest all.

    faceman: Maybe it’s like the cat. It can be both forged and not forged at the same time. It’s just that birthers collapse the waveform by direct observation and constrain it to the single value ‘Forged’.

  63. avatar
    Curious George February 14, 2015 at 11:16 am #

    John,
    “………and therefore they can’t trusted with any realability.”

    I think what you meant was “….and therefore they can’t be trusted with any reliability.”

    If you were referring to Arpaio and Zullo and Violin and Gal-loops and BR and the rest of the crew of the good ship Deception, you’d be correct.

  64. avatar
    faceman February 14, 2015 at 11:33 am #

    It’s all in the phraseology.

    If I make the statement ‘Obama’s father is Barack Obama Sr, Malcolm X, and Frank Marshall’, that is demonstrably false. (He only has one biological father)

    If I make the statement ‘Obama’s father is Barack Obama Sr, Malcolm X, or Frank Marshall’, that would be indeterminate (Law of the Excluded Middle, it could be someone else. Hypothetically speaking).

    If I make the statement ‘Obama’s father is Barack Obama Sr, Malcolm X, Frank Marshall, or someone else’, that is a true statement.

    However, even though true, it does not constrain the waveform to a single determinate solution. Therein lies the error than John, Sven, and others make. John, in particular, likes to say that ‘if it is proven that Obama …..’ and then bases his treatise on the assumption that it has been proven without providing any actual proof. He has not collapsed the waveform to a determinate solution.

    Nancy, on the other hand, postulates no preconditions. She just invokes an entire universe in a solipsistic manner – her perception is reality.

  65. avatar
    Arthur February 14, 2015 at 12:58 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Obama’s father cannot be Barack Obama, Sr, Malcolm X, Frank Marshall Davis and the rest all.

    Don’t forget Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo, a Javanese religious leader, who some birthers claim is Obama’s real father.

  66. avatar
    Northland10 February 14, 2015 at 7:28 pm #

    Arthur: Don’t forget Muhammad Subuh Sumohadiwidjojo, a Javanese religious leader, who some birthers claim is Obama’s real father.

    I wonder if Obama’s local Hallmark store extended credit to him for his Fathers’ Day purchases.

  67. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2015 at 9:24 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    Birthers as a whole seem not to be aware of the Law of the Excluded Middle:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle

    Well for absolute certainty they believe that in a binary tree, the inclusive branch above is a third possibility.

    In other words, there are Natural Born Citizens and Naturalized Citizens and Citizens. Those are three distinct classes by their reckoning, not one all inclusive set (Citizens) and two subsets.

  68. avatar
    Fuzz T Was February 14, 2015 at 9:41 pm #

    The President and his Crew have stone walled the matter for years. First, only a the short form version existed and nothing else. Those who said there was a long form were mocked. Then, what do you know, the long form that didn’t exist, did exist and the Hawaiian Governor, who was going produce it when he took office, after looking high and low, couldn’t find it. Then the long form, that didn’t exist and couldn’t be found, appeared at a (pencil and paper only) White House press conference 6000 miles away from Hawaii but only a copy of the copy was allowed to be seen by reporters except for one Savannah Guthrie, NBC News. Why just her? Why couldn’t all the reporter’s see the certified copy and touch the seal? It makes no sense. What a political coup it would have been for the President to hold up his BC on national TV (like politicians do) in front of cameras with a big Cheshire Cat smile on his kisser saying, “look you stupid ‘Birthers‘. Here is my Hawaiian birth certificate. Now shut up or Lois Lerner will audit you and NSA will spy on you,” but he didn’t. The Suits in his Crew wouldn’t let him near the damn thing. One would have thought the document was contaminated with Ebola.

    What is the big deal? It’s a piece of paper containing signatures and his birth data. Society creates these records so they can be looked at. Yet for some never explained reason Obama’s BC is kept hidden within the catacombs beneath the White House as though anyone who sees it is turns to stone. Why? If the document were lost or stolen and sold on eBay, the Governor of Hawaii, would surely give him another one.

    This situation makes no sense and has never passed the smell test.

  69. avatar
    Arthur B. February 14, 2015 at 10:08 pm #

    Fuzz T Was: This situation makes no sense and has never passed the smell test.

    The short-form was displayed for the first time (iirc) in 2008. I understand that it left some folks feeling suspicious.

    But you know, all investigators begin with suspicions. Then they accumulate evidence, separate the wheat from the chaff, and attempt to come up with a plausible hypothesis backed by logic and evidence. Then they present their evidence to be weighed in the balance against the evidence on the other side.

    You’ve had seven years. The fact that you’re still relying on the smell test suggests very strongly that you have no evidence and have built no case.

    Stop pussyfooting around. Where was President Obama born? How do you know?

  70. avatar
    gorefan February 14, 2015 at 10:08 pm #

    Fuzz T Was:
    The President and his Crew have stone walled the matter for years.First, only a the short form version existed and nothing else.Those who said there was a long form were mocked. Then, what do you know, the long form that didn’t exist, did exist and the Hawaiian Governor, who was going produce it when he took office, after looking high and low, couldn’t find it.Then the long form, that didn’t exist and couldn’t be found, appearedat a (pencil and paper only) White House press conference 6000 miles away from Hawaii but only a copy of the copy was allowed to be seen by reporters except for one Savannah Guthrie, NBC News. Why just her? Why couldn’t all the reporter’s see the certified copy and touch the seal?It makes no sense. What a political coup it would have been for the President to hold up his BC on national TV (like politicians do) in front of cameras with a big Cheshire Cat smile on his kisser saying, “look you stupid ‘Birthers‘.Here is my Hawaiian birth certificate.Now shut up or Lois Lerner will audit you and NSA will spy on you,” but he didn’t.The Suits in his Crew wouldn’t let him near the damn thing.One would have thought the document was contaminated with Ebola.

    What is the big deal?It’s a piece of paper containing signatures and his birth data.Society creates these records so they can be looked at. Yet for some never explained reason Obama’s BC is kept hidden within the catacombs beneath the White House as though anyone who sees it is turns to stone.Why? If the document were lost or stolen and sold on eBay, the Governor of Hawaii, would surely give him another one.

    This situation makes no sense and has never passed the smell test.

    How do you know she was the only one to see it or touch it? She was the only one to report that she had touched it maybe others did too but didn’t feel the need to report it.

    It is not locked away in the catacombs of the White House. A copy of it available on the White House website. Did you expect them to send you your own personal copy?

    When was the last time you saw a politician hold up their birth certificate? They have only posted images on the Internet.

  71. avatar
    Keith February 14, 2015 at 10:43 pm #

    Fuzz T Was:

    Your premises are incorrect, and your conclusions are therefore worthless.

    The President and his Crew have stone walled the matter for years.

    No stonewalling took place. Unreasonable demands were appropriately ignored. One doesn’t use an elephant gun on a fly buzzing around your head. On occaision a flyswatter was required.

    First, only a the short form version existed and nothing else. Those who said there was a long form were mocked.

    No one (on the President’s ‘side’) ever, at any point, denied the existence of the original hospital record in the Hawai’ian Department of Health (DoH) archives. No one, ever.

    What was asserted was that the computer generated, so-called ‘Short Form’ was the OFFICIAL HAWAI’IAN birth certificate, valid for every and all purposes (except perhaps for some internal Hawai’ian administration of Native Title) and that Hawai’i no longer issued photocopies of the original hospital records (the so-called ‘Long Form’) as a matter of course. The Hawai’ian law on the subject was studied endlessly. It was always pointed out that the DoH could if the Director approved, issue such a photocopied form and certify it.

    Any ‘mocking’ that took place was only after endless attempts to educate the birther ‘questioner’ who maintained willful ignorance on the facts of the matter.

    Recap:
    1) the Short Form is THE STANDARD official Hawai’ian Birth Certificate. It is produced from a computer database whose information was entered from the original Hospital record of birth.
    2) the Long Form is a NON-STANDARD Birth Certificate that can be produced only by an expensive NON-STANDARD procedure to photocopy the original Hospital Record of Birth.

    Then, what do you know, the long form that didn’t exist, did exist

    The long form came into existence because the Director of the DoH granted the President of the United States a favor and created a NON-STANDARD Birth Certificate by photocopying the original Hospital Record of Birth onto security paper and certified it by applying his seal and signature.

    Recap:
    3) The Original Hospital Record of Birth has ALWAYS existed (since August 1961 anyway)
    4) According to Hawai’ian law and departmental rules, the Director of the DoH has discretion to create NON-STANDARD Birth Certificates.
    5) Preparing NON-STANDARD birth certificates is expensive and negates the point of having STANDARD birth certificates.
    6) The Long Form Birth Certificate that was shown at the press conference was created as a favor to the President on his request.

    and the Hawaiian Governor, who was going produce it when he took office, after looking high and low, couldn’t find it.

    Nothing even remotely like that happened.

    NOTHING.
    REMOTELY.
    LIKE THAT.
    HAPPENED.

    Abercrombie said he would try to find more information that could be legally released to the public. He could not find any such information.

  72. avatar
    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater February 15, 2015 at 9:22 am #

    Keith:

    Abercrombie said he would try to find more information that could be legally released to the public. He could not find any such information.

    It wasn’t that he couldn’t find anything it was that he was not legally allowed to release anything he did find.

  73. avatar
    John Reilly February 15, 2015 at 11:45 am #

    Mr. Fuzz T. Was:

    For those who agree with your premise, that the President ought to have a certified copy of his long form birth certificate to remove any doubt of his eligibility, can you provide links to the long form birth certificates of:

    John McCain
    Sarah Palin
    Mitt Romney
    Paul Ryan

    (You surely checked them out in 2008 and 2012)

    and from our class of 2016:

    Hillary Clinton
    Ted Cruz
    Marco Rubio
    Bobby Jindahl
    Rick Santorum
    Scott Walker
    Rand Paul
    Jeb Bush

    and anyone else you think might be running. Surely a patriot like you has researched this issue to be fully informed in the past and to be ready for the future. You surely don’t propose waiting until January 20, 2017, to start doing research, do you. You surely are not telling us that you are only concerned about whether Black people have papers, right? That can’t possibly be what you are saying.

  74. avatar
    Keith February 15, 2015 at 12:36 pm #

    Dr. Kenneth Noisewater: It wasn’t that he couldn’t find anything it was that he was not legally allowed to release anything he did find.

    I am pretty sure that that is what I said, but I guess your rewording is easier to parse than mine.

  75. avatar
    Curious George February 15, 2015 at 1:43 pm #

    John Reilly:
    Mr. Fuzz T. Was:

    For those who agree with your premise, that the President ought to have a certified copy of his long form birth certificate to remove any doubt of his eligibility, can you provide links to the long form birth certificates of:

    John McCain
    Sarah Palin
    Mitt Romney
    Paul Ryan

    (You surely checked them out in 2008 and 2012)

    and from our class of 2016:

    Hillary Clinton
    Ted Cruz
    Marco Rubio
    Bobby Jindahl
    Rick Santorum
    Scott Walker
    Rand Paul
    Jeb Bush

    and anyone else you think might be running.Surely a patriot like you has researched this issue to be fully informed in the past and to be ready for the future.You surely don’t propose waiting until January 20, 2017, to start doing research, do you.You surely are not telling us that you are only concerned about whether Black people have papers, right?That can’t possibly be what you are saying.

    Just for the fun of it, get a copy of Joe Arpaio’s birth certificate. He has said in the past that maybe he should run for president. Well, according to birther lore, Arpaio’s parents (as in two) were not American citizens and therefore Arpaio is not a “natural born citizen.” Kind of ironic isn’t it?

  76. avatar
    Matt February 15, 2015 at 5:28 pm #

    John Reilly: You surely are not telling us that you are only concerned about whether Black people have papers, right? That can’t possibly be what you are saying.

    That is what he is saying. And don’t call him Shirley.

  77. avatar
    justlw February 15, 2015 at 7:30 pm #

    gorefan: When was the last time you saw a politician hold up their birth certificate?

    Don’t you remember? There was an incredibly famous news photo of the president holding up:

    TRUMAN BEGETS TRUMAN

  78. avatar
    justlw February 15, 2015 at 7:34 pm #

    I was going to say the only thing in Fuzz’ post that was right was how far the White House is from Hawaii, but he was off by over 1,000 miles on that one, too.

    It’s not often you see perfection of that sort, but he seems to have achieved it. Kudos.

  79. avatar
    y_p_w February 15, 2015 at 7:59 pm #

    Keith:

    2) the Long Form is a NON-STANDARD Birth Certificate that can be produced only by an expensive NON-STANDARD procedure to photocopy the original Hospital Record of Birth.

    i’d just point out that how “standard” such a procedure would be depends on the state and/or municipality. Hawaii of course has settled on its own procedure. They’ve gone to computerized records as the standard to save on costs. Their current procedure for hospital births is to ONLY store a computerized record, and the standard request for a certified copy means a printout record. That seems to show up in their prices for a certified copy – $10 for the first copy and $4 for additional copies in the same order. Regardless of the cost savings, quite a few states that have gone to computerized records charge considerably more even with the cost savings. Here in California some counties charge way more, although not all of it can be attributed to the cost of delivering an image..

    Even so, deciding on a standard for vital records is an executive decision. Around here all cities, counties, and the state will produce some sort of image. Nearly all the ones I’ve gotten were obviously scanned, with certain pixelation artifacts because they weren’t in very fine resolution. I did get one copy of my marriage certificate on the day it was submitted, and that one looks like it was copied directly on a copier, with hi-res photocopy resolution. I’ve seen some photos of California birth certificates that look like they could have been made from some sort of microform – sort of hi-res but with the typical smudges seen on microform.

  80. avatar
    y_p_w February 15, 2015 at 8:10 pm #

    John Reilly:

    and from our class of 2016:

    Ted Cruz

    Only in a transcript form. Of course he was born in Canada, and in any case I don’t know of any birth certificate form that includes the then citizenship of the parent(s).

    http://www.dallasnews.com/incoming/20130818-cruz_0819nat_32638724.jpg.ece/BINARY/w620x413/CRUZ_0819NAT_32638724.JPG

    Bobby Jindahl

    He actually released his.

    http://media.nola.com/politics/photo/jindal-birth-certificatejpg-0f45528d3269cada.jpg

  81. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 15, 2015 at 8:17 pm #

    “Indian” is not a race 👿 AND there is a 3-digit year stamp–obviously not valid.

    y_p_w: Bobby Jindahl

    He actually released his.

    http://media.nola.com/politics/photo/jindal-birth-certificatejpg-0f45528d3269cada.jpg

  82. avatar
    y_p_w February 15, 2015 at 8:23 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    “Indian” is not a race AND there is a 3-digit year stamp–obviously not valid.

    And is “Piyush” really a name?

  83. avatar
    John Reilly February 15, 2015 at 8:29 pm #

    y_p_w: And is “Piyush” really a name?

    And why doesn’t he go by his real name? What is he hiding?

  84. avatar
    justlw February 15, 2015 at 8:49 pm #

    Is “BAton Rouge” a standard rendering of the city name; dialect rendered typographically, perhaps? If not, surely it’s a CLUE. To SOMETHING.

  85. avatar
    Keith February 15, 2015 at 10:11 pm #

    y_p_w: i’d just point out that how “standard” such a procedure would be depends on the state and/or municipality. Hawaii of course has settled on its own procedure.

    I’d just like to point out that the discussion was about Hawai’i procedure and nowhere else.

  86. avatar
    CarlOrcas February 16, 2015 at 1:09 am #

    justlw:
    Is “BAton Rouge” a standard rendering of the city name; dialect rendered typographically, perhaps?If not, surely it’s a CLUE.To SOMETHING.

    I know. But I can’t tell you until the investigation is completed. It’s big. Real big.

  87. avatar
    y_p_w February 17, 2015 at 1:20 pm #

    Keith: I’d just like to point out that the discussion was about Hawai’i procedure and nowhere else.

    However, it’s not necessarily more expensive to produce an image format for certified birth certificates with the right setup. Hawaii has chose not to have a setup where they can look up scanned images. They may very well have a set of scanned images as backups. It take them more time and effort, but it’s not inherently more expensive. Most of the agencies that give options (short or long) don’t seem to charge more for the latter, even if it involves research and/or more steps.

    I certainly understand that I can get different forms of vital records. Once I was trying to get a backup copy of our marriage certificate. The staff was having difficulty with their database and we on the phone with their contractor who maintained the database (that would probably freak out birthers). Since I was waiting, the clerk handling my request said that she might possibly “pull up the microfilm”. At that point it is costing them more, but they’re supposed to be providing a service.

  88. avatar
    Keith February 17, 2015 at 2:46 pm #

    y_p_w: It take them more time and effort, but it’s not inherently more expensive.

    People time is the expensive part. It may not be particularly difficult, but it is more time consuming and more involved making sure that everything is correct.

    Taking people out of their normal work procedure and putting them onto something that isn’t done more than once or twice a decade is inherently more expensive than doing the standard procedure. That is why they have standard procedures.

  89. avatar
    y_p_w February 17, 2015 at 3:45 pm #

    Keith: People time is the expensive part. It may not be particularly difficult, but it is more time consuming and more involved making sure that everything is correct.

    Taking people out of their normal work procedure and putting them onto something that isn’t done more than once or twice a decade is inherently more expensive than doing the standard procedure. That is why they have standard procedures.

    However, they could have chosen a more efficient manner to do so, which would involve scanning for a database. Hawaii doesn’t seem to have done this, and thus they end up going through a manual procedure if there’s a special request like Obama’s. They do get other special requests, including requests for non-certified documents. That’s a cost of having open records laws. Obviously they’re not going to scan every possible document that might be subject to an open records request, but handle them as they come along. “Cost” is a matter of how much is spent for how often such a request will be made. I don’t think they anticipated that they’d have to deal with birthers when they decided that the computerized printout format would be their default BC document.

    As far as I can tell, vital record agencies in California have set up to efficiently produce an image of the original document for vital records. They may have the occasional “one off” documents copied from microform or directly off the original (I have one of those) but for the most part the records seem to be digitized. I looked over the Nixon BC requested from the California Dept of Public Health, and that shows pixelation artifacts. I originally thought that Jon Huntsman’s BC from San Mateo County was straight off the microform (shows spots typical of that) but another look and I see pixelation. I’m guessing they scanned images from their microform, since the original had been sent off the the state years ago.

  90. avatar
    Keith February 17, 2015 at 8:02 pm #

    y_p_w: As far as I can tell, vital record agencies in California have set up to efficiently produce an image of the original document for vital records.

    Your discussion of what may or may not be California’s procedures is one of the purest strawman attempts I have seen in a long time.

    Once again, we are talking about Hawai’i not California; who gives a flying fornication what California does?. California has an entirely different vital record system and what California does is entirely irrelevant to Hawai’i. Obama was not born in California, nobody has ever alleged that he was born in California (that I know of), and trying to get an Obama birth certificate in California of any kind is going to get you exactly nowhere.

    In Hawai’i, Fuddy personally oversaw the production of the document and its certification. I expect, but cannot verify at the moment that Onaka was there also along with whatever senior clerks and technicians they felt was needed to ensure the process went smoothly and no damage was done to any of the original hospital birth records (Obama’s wasn’t the only one that had to be handled in order to get Obama’s out of the binder for photocopying) . Now what exactly is the “hourly rate” equivalent of Fuddy’s salary? Onaka’s? The technicians? How many were there?

    The standard form would normally take a Desk Clerk maybe 2 minutes to find the record in the database and print it out, and maybe another minute or so to get it certified; it turned into probably a 60 minute exercise to locate and copy the document by Departmental Executives and senior technicians.

    Now, I pulled those number out of thin air, I think I’m being conservative as to how much time was involved. The point being that to produce a non-standard Birth Certificate is considerably more expensive that producing a standard Birth Certificate.

    Hawai’i has a standard practice that avoids using the original hospital birth record directly because it is both safer and less expensive. You can study the vital statistics processes of all 49 other states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, a hundred and twenty something foreign countries and the grey lizards of Aldebaran IV and it won’t change the fact that Obama’s Birth Record is under the protection of the State of Hawai’i.

  91. avatar
    y_p_w February 18, 2015 at 12:18 pm #

    Keith: Your discussion of what may or may not be California’s procedures is one of the purest strawman attempts I have seen in a long time.

    You mention time and cost. I’m just saying that providing a “long form” as a standard form isn’t any more costly to a vital records office if the lookup system is set up to produce it. I’ve been in an office where it was done in 2 minutes after a scanned digital image of the original was found.

    Hawaii’s DoH chose to completely computerize their records as have many other agencies. There’s no going back to the previous method. So in their case, it’s more costly to them to handle individual cases where a “long form” is requested. However, several other agencies produce a different form upon request, even though the standard form is a computerized abstract. Louisiana has a ridiculously long abstract complete with the name of the hospital. However, Bobby Jindal asked for and received a copy of his original document.

    http://media.nola.com/politics/photo/jindal-birth-certificatejpg-0f45528d3269cada.jpg

    It is different than the abstract format.

    https://cenlamar.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/screen-shot-2010-07-14-at-9-01-57-pm.png
    https://www.apostille.net/uploads/1/5/1/7/15171332/7748533_orig.png

    Certainly in Texas they’ve had issues with midwife fraud and thus they give an option to request a “long form” for the same price. I’ve looked up NYC, which currently collects only electronic records of births, but where one can make a request for a certified “vault copy”. They get the occasional request for one and factor it into their staffing levels.

    I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, or that Hawaii was trying to obfuscate anything. They decided on a standard procedure and stuck to it when birthers were coming at them from all sides. I doubt the cost is much of an issue given how other agencies will pull up a “long form” upon request for the same cost as a “short form”. The occasional “one off” request isn’t typically going to cause an agency’s operations to grind to a halt. It was just an executive decision.

  92. avatar
    Keith February 18, 2015 at 8:19 pm #

    y_p_w: Louisiana has a ridiculously long abstract …

    I repeat, President Obama was born in HAWAI’I.

    y_p_w: Certainly in Texas…

    I repeat, President Obama was born in HAWAI’I.

    y_p_w: I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, or that Hawaii was trying to obfuscate anything.

    You are saying that the Hawai’ian system design is wrong because they didn’t provide for alternate forms when they set it up 20 years ago or whatever. Maybe they could have done it differently, but they didn’t. Obama was born in Hawai’i and the Californian, Texas, and Louisiana experiences have nothing to do with Hawai’i – bringing them up is a strawman argument. The Hawai’i process is what it is and no discussion of how it works elsewhere has any bearing on how it operates in Hawai’i.

    Remember, California does not have a single central repository for the original paperwork. The counties (and maybe some cities for all I know) are responsible for registering births in the first instance and then pass copies on to the State for the state records (or maybe they retain copies and pass the originals to the state, doesn’t matter; same effect). I understand that Texas is similar. I don’t know about Louisiana. The point being that the record keeping requirements in Hawai’i are completely different from those in the other states you name.

    Yes Hawai’i could have designed their system differently, but they had no need to do so and more importantly they did not.

    Your argument – that had they done it differently they could easily provide alternate document formats – is bone-headed. For the once or twice a decade that someone NEEDS such a document, the overhead of maintaining such a duplicate system is ridiculous. This is a Government agency and they are undoubtedly very conscious of how they spend the public’s money.

    Hawai’i has ONE standard Birth Certificate format (the so-called ‘short form’) and produce Birth Certificates from a database printout. That standard BC contains all the information anyone requires on a birth certificate for any purpose in the United States and it contains all the security tokens that ensure that is is prima facie evidence for the facts reported thereon. In particular, it contains 100% of the information that a Birth Certificate can contribute to the question of Presidential eligibility – location and date of birth (no birth certificate can supply the other criterium).

    I repeat, for emphasis, that other States operate under a different legal and procedural environment and their database needs and administrative processes will necessarily be different from that in Hawai’i.

  93. avatar
    y_p_w February 19, 2015 at 10:57 am #

    Keith: I repeat, President Obama was born in HAWAI’I.

    I repeat, President Obama was born in HAWAI’I.

    You are saying that the Hawai’ian system design is wrong because they didn’t provide for alternate forms when they set it up 20 years ago or whatever. Maybe they could have done it differently, but they didn’t. Obama was born in Hawai’i and the Californian, Texas, and Louisiana experiences have nothing to do with Hawai’i – bringing them up is a strawman argument. The Hawai’i process is what it is and no discussion of how it works elsewhere has any bearing on how it operates in Hawai’i.

    Remember, California does not have a single central repository for the original paperwork. The counties (and maybe some cities for all I know) are responsible for registering births in the first instance and then pass copies on to the State for the state records (or maybe they retain copies and pass the originals to the state, doesn’t matter; same effect). I understand that Texas is similar. I don’t know about Louisiana. The point being that the record keeping requirements in Hawai’i are completely different from those in the other states you name.

    Yes Hawai’i could have designed their system differently, but they had no need to do so and more importantly they did not.

    Your argument – that had they done it differently they could easily provide alternate document formats –is bone-headed. For the once or twice a decade that someone NEEDS such a document, the overhead of maintaining such a duplicate system is ridiculous. This is a Government agency and they are undoubtedly very conscious of how they spend the public’s money.

    Hawai’i has ONE standard Birth Certificate format (the so-called ‘short form’) and produce Birth Certificates from a database printout. That standard BC contains all the information anyone requires on a birth certificate for any purpose in the United States and it contains all the security tokens that ensure that is is prima facie evidence for the facts reported thereon. In particular, it contains 100% of the information that a Birth Certificate can contribute to the question of Presidential eligibility – location and date of birth (no birth certificate can supply the other criterium).

    I repeat, for emphasis, that other States operate under a different legal and procedural environment and their database needs and administrative processes will necessarily be different from that in Hawai’i.

    I get that it was an executive decision by the then Director. However, it wasn’t set in stone. I’ve read over the relevant Hawaii law, and it authorizes several formats, but the transcript is the only one that’s commonly issued now as a matter of policy. And of course Fuddy made the one exception, hoping that maybe just maybe it would shut up the bithers, even though the result was and endless stream of more conspiracy theories.

    I’m just saying the cost is perhaps not a nonissue, but occasional atypical requests are something that happen to every public agency. I mentioned getting a vital record when the lookup system was malfunctioning, and the clerk was ready to go to microfilm archives even though it was taking her way more time than she’d typically spend. I’m thinking of just going there and asking for one from the microfilm, because the standard scan actually cropped off the edge where I’m the “ROOM” and my wife is the “RIDE”. I think they’ll do it if I ask, even though it’s not their standard workflow.

    Now whether they insist on a standard workflow being followed (save a request from the POTUS) is one thing, but I don’t think cost was ever their issue. In all the inquiries made into why they had a short form, the Hawaii DoH didn’t cite cost of producing a long form as a reason – just that it was the only format they issued.

    I wasn’t getting at necessarily having to maintain two systems. They’ve obviously gone to electronic birth registration in Hawaii. California has not. However, many other jurisdictions that do EBR and produce abstract vital records as the common format do give an option to produce a “long form” or “vault copy” if available. It may take research time and employee time, but they’ll do it. And many warn that it may take a couple of weeks. Hawaii chooses not to do it this way. No problem really, but again I don’t believe that one-off requests are necessarily a big consideration when policy is made.

  94. avatar
    Keith February 19, 2015 at 6:39 pm #

    y_p_w: I’m just saying the cost is perhaps not a nonissue, but occasional atypical requests are something that happen to every public agency.

    Now you are making more sense.

    The issue as I see it was several interrelated ‘problems’.

    1. Hawai’i’s standard BC is legal and complete. End of story.
    2. Birther’s were denying that the Hawai’i standard BC is a) legal and b) complete.
    3. The Birther’s were in effect challenging from complete ignorance and malice the legality of the Hawai’i standard BC, and the competence of the Hawai’i records Officials and Systems Designers and those of the dozens of other States that have similar format BCs.
    4. The Birther’s were demanding a “Long Form” Birth Certificate from Hawai’i.
    5. Hawai’i does not HAVE a “Long Form” Birth Certificate. This is a very important point. Hawai’i has a standard format “Birth Certificate”. Other states may have “Short Form” and “Long Form”, Hawai’i does not.
    6. Hawai’i has the legal capability to produce one off non-standard Birth Certificates.

    Another key point here is that it isn’t the layout of the page that makes a Birth Certificate a Birth Certificate.

    A Birth Certificate is a document, ANY DOCUMENT, that contains the “important facts” (where “important facts” is defined by law and by agreement amongst the States) of a birth and carries an authorized CERTIFICATION that those facts are correct according to the records maintained by the authority who controls those records.

    “Short Form”, “Long Form”, “Hand Written”, “Photocopied”, “Generated from Computer Database” – these are all meaningless. What is important is the INFORMATION on the document and whether or not that INFORMATION is CERTIFIED to be correct.

    As long as those criteria are met, it is not of mine, or yours, or anybody else how the information is laid out on the page. It is of absolutely no consequence what-so-ever. An Hawai’ian Birth Certificate looks like an Hawai’ian Birth Certificate because it looks like an Hawai’ian Birth Certificate. End of story.

    If Hawai’i had, even for argument’s sake, allowed that anyone could get a non-standard form, then especially with the Birther’s screaming from the rooftops that you couldn’t even enroll in Little League with a “Short Form”, they would be flooded with requests for non-standard forms and perhaps even more ludicrous lawsuits from ‘injured’ Hawai’ans (my Johnnie didn’t win the Little League championship because of all those illegal BC’s that were used by impostors!) than those that have ‘pestered’ the President (not) for 8 years. The mess would completely undermine the credibility of their office. It is insulting nonsense.

  95. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) February 20, 2015 at 7:13 am #

    Keith: What is important is the INFORMATION on the document and whether or not that INFORMATION is CERTIFIED to be correct.

    I think there is a fine distinction (that birthers would jump on if they ever got their wish to inspect the vault document and found it is identical to the certified copies published):
    The certification refers only to the integrity of the data (i.e. that they were not changed when transfered over from the original source).
    It does not (and cannot) certify that the source data is 100% correct.
    As a simple example, when the vault document says “born 8:38 a.m.”, that is what the hospital provided as information. The state cannot and does not verify that information, it can only vouch for the correct transfer of that information into its files (so that the hospital didn’t say “6:38” in this example).

    Of course birthers would use that fact to deny the evidentiary value of the vault document (and, by extension, *any* birth record in the US) by simply claiming “the hospital was lying, the doctor was lying, we need further proof” etc.

  96. avatar
    faceman February 20, 2015 at 7:37 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): I think there is a fine distinction (that birthers would jump on if they ever got their wish to inspect the vault document and found it is identical to the certified copies published):The certification refers only to the integrity of the data (i.e. that they were not changed when transfered over from the original source).It does not (and cannot) certify that the source data is 100% correct.As a simple example, when the vault document says “born 8:38 a.m.”, that is what the hospital provided as information. The state cannot and does not verify that information, it can only vouch for the correct transfer of that information into its files (so that the hospital didn’t say “6:38″ in this example).Of course birthers would use that fact to deny the evidentiary value of the vault document (and, by extension, *any* birth record in the US) by simply claiming “the hospital was lying, the doctor was lying, we need further proof” etc.

    I already had a back-and-forth on that very issue with David Farrar a while back on another website. “Just because that is what is in Hawaii’s official records does not mean that it is true. That’s why we need to see birth records.” On the other hand, we also talked about the blurb in Obama’s biography from the publisher about being born in Kenya, and he called that ‘prima facie’ evidence.

    Catch 22.

  97. avatar
    Notorial Dissent February 20, 2015 at 9:22 am #

    And he would be so very wrong since that would probably be at best third party hearsay.

    faceman”On the other hand, we also talked about the blurb in Obama’s biography from the publisher about being born in Kenya, and he called that ‘prima facie’ evidence.

  98. avatar
    faceman February 20, 2015 at 9:34 am #

    Notorial Dissent: And he would be so very wrong since that would probably be at best third party hearsay.

    Exactly. He accepts that blurb as ‘proof’, but dismisses the actual certified BC because the official records ‘might not be true.’

  99. avatar
    y_p_w February 20, 2015 at 1:32 pm #

    Keith: Now you are making more sense.

    The issue as I see it was several interrelated ‘problems’.

    1. Hawai’i’s standard BC is legal and complete. End of story.
    2. Birther’s were denying that the Hawai’i standard BC is a) legal and b) complete.
    3. The Birther’s were in effect challenging from complete ignorance and malice the legality of the Hawai’i standard BC, and the competence of the Hawai’i records Officials and Systems Designers and those of the dozens of other States that have similar format BCs.
    4. The Birther’s were demanding a “Long Form” Birth Certificate from Hawai’i.
    5. Hawai’i does not HAVE a “Long Form” Birth Certificate. This is a very important point. Hawai’i has a standard format “Birth Certificate”. Other states may have “Short Form” and “Long Form”, Hawai’i does not.
    6. Hawai’i has the legal capability to produce one off non-standard Birth Certificates.

    Another key point here is that it isn’t the layout of the page that makes a Birth Certificate a Birth Certificate.

    A Birth Certificate is a document, ANY DOCUMENT, that contains the “important facts” (where “important facts” is defined by law and by agreement amongst the States) of a birth and carries an authorized CERTIFICATION that those facts are correct according to the records maintained by the authority who controls those records.

    “Short Form”, “Long Form”, “Hand Written”, “Photocopied”, “Generated from Computer Database” – these are all meaningless. What is important is the INFORMATION on the document and whether or not that INFORMATION is CERTIFIED to be correct.

    As long as those criteria are met, it is not of mine, or yours, or anybody else how the information is laid out on the page. It is of absolutely no consequence what-so-ever. An Hawai’ian Birth Certificate looks like an Hawai’ian Birth Certificate because it looks like an Hawai’ian Birth Certificate. End of story.

    If Hawai’i had, even for argument’s sake, allowed that anyone could get a non-standard form, then especially with the Birther’s screaming from the rooftops that you couldn’t even enroll in Little League with a “Short Form”, they would be flooded with requests for non-standard forms and perhaps even more ludicrous lawsuits from ‘injured’ Hawai’ans (my Johnnie didn’t win the Little League championship because of all those illegal BC’s that were used by impostors!) than those that have ‘pestered’ the President (not) for 8 years. The mess would completely undermine the credibility of their office. It is insulting nonsense.

    Theoretically Hawaii did have the “long form” for those born at a time when that was their standard workflow. By 2001 they decided there would be a “standard” format in the form of an abstract. Over the years it’s been noted that Hawaii has actually issued certified photostats, typed transcripts, photocopies of the original document, and the common form used now – a computer printed abstract. There did seem to be about 10 year period where one could request a photocopy of the original while they were also issuing the abstracts as the more common format.

    There are some interesting comparisons. Texas I believe still collects a signed form. However, their standard BC format is a transcript. We know that the transcript has set off alarm bells with the State Dept to the point where they want to see the name of the attendant. California used to have an abstract, but after a while it became suspect. I don’t necessarily think any of this applies to Obama’s “short form”, but in this odd world the birthers can fit this narrative of certain formats getting scrutiny from the State Dept to meaning that Obama’s document couldn’t be valid.

    I only point to other agencies’ workflow not to pass judgement on what’s right or wrong, but to give examples of how an agency can go about doing business. My main point is that cost is rarely the reason for not doing the atypical. They often assume that such requests will be so rare that it barely factors into their manpower budget. Hawaii DoH probably decided on a “short form” only policy to save money and then gave Obama that one exception for practical reasons. Obviously giving that one exception to Obama didn’t shut up the birthers, but then we’d be missing out on the entertainment value.

  100. avatar
    Keith February 20, 2015 at 10:37 pm #

    y_p_w: Theoretically Hawaii did have the “long form” for those born at a time when that was their standard workflow.

    Sorry that noise you heard was the point going over your head, yet again.

    Obviously, before the records were computerized and the “print from database” system was implemented, Hawai’i had a different “Standard Form”. They didn’t have a “Long Form” then either. They had a “Standard Form”.

    In Hawai’i, there is no such thing as “Long Form” or “Short Form” there is only “Standard Form” and “non-Standard Form”. The size, shape, content, and layout of the “Standard Form” can change at any time the State and the DoH choose. There is no magic. Some “Standard Forms” are physically bigger or have more information than others. Probably Hawai’i’s “Standard Form” looked a lot like the so-called Obama “Long Form” when he was born, but I don’t know that for sure. Undoubtedly the security paper would have been different or even non-existent.

    Other states may very well have more than one “Standard Form”; and they may distinguish between the available “Standard Forms” by calling them “Short Form” and “Long Form”. If you can choose between two (or more) different formats when you request a birth certificate, then all of those formats are “Standard”, what ever the size or content is – they are specifically provided for in the “Standard Operating Procedures” manual for that State’s vital records department.

    Hawai’i does not have more than one “Standard Form” however; Hawai’i has one “Standard Form”. Its “Standard Form” has changed over the years, but there has only ever been one “Standard Form” at a time. The idea that Hawai’i could physically, if it so chose, photocopy the original Hospital record and certify that document was NEVER IN DOUBT. The demand that they do so for the benefit of Orly or Apuzzo or Arpaio or any curious stalker was simply OUT OF THE QUESTION. Under Hawai’ian law it is illegal for Birth Certificates to be issued to anyone other than the specified interested parties.

    Random citizens are not in that list. Period.

    Only Obama can get a copy of Obama’s birth certificate – in any form what-so-ever. Period.

    Obama asked Hawai’i for a copy to ensure he (or his campaign or the DNC, whatever) had the proof to back any affidavits that had to be issued for ballot qualifications). Hawai’i responded with the “Standard Form” that was produced at that time for all BC requests.

    As for your continued attempt to distract the discussion with the Texas and California experience, it is the way that the historically implemented bureaucratic procedures function in California and Texas that resulted in their exposure to fraud and it is the same historical procedures that necessitate the provision for 2 or more “Standard Forms”. The procedures probably worked well when they were originated, but have been exposed as clumsy and vulnerable in the current environment.

  101. avatar
    y_p_w February 21, 2015 at 2:52 pm #

    Keith:

    As for your continued attempt to distract the discussion with the Texas and California experience, it is the way that the historically implemented bureaucratic procedures function in California and Texas that resulted in their exposure to fraud and it is the same historical procedures that necessitate the provision for 2 or more “Standard Forms”. The procedures probably worked well when they were originated, but have been exposed as clumsy and vulnerable in the current environment.

    We’ve gone over why Texas had issues. It was rampant midwife fraud along the border areas, where some midwives were signing off on more births per day than they could have possibly attended. That’s why the State Dept wants to see a copy of the original – to get a looksee at the name of the attendant, with several names on their suspect list. California’s issue was that it wasn’t even a terribly secure document and that there were some counterfeiting kits that produced something almost indistinguishable with the real thing.

    California jurisdictions have never stopped issuing images of the original document since they started. The abstract was just something available for a short period of time for maybe a decade, and probably as a reduced price. I remember seeing a photo of a counterfeit abstract of birth, but can’t find it now. However, I did find an abstract of death, which looks similar to what I remember. It looks like a third the size of an 8.5×11″ sheet of paper and may have even been torn off from a bigger letter sized sheet (I noticed perforations). I’ve heard of these (at least the birth versions) used to get passports, but they’re specifically not acceptable now and in any case don’t seem to have more than a preprinted signature and no embossed or other type of seal applied separately.

    http://braceroarchive.org/es/items/show/1087

    Personally I think that birth certificates are sort of a weird way to establish identity or even the facts of birth, but perhaps there’s no current practical alternative. Is there really any certainty that a person really is the same one named on a document? We’ve heard of some cases of certifier fraud. There are those who have obtained legitimate birth certificates (think PR) and used them to establish new identities. The Phillipine Little League team that got its title pulled included older kids who used the birth certificates of other kids to submit as proof of age. Additionally, there was that NJ county clerk’s employee who literally faked several documents when paid under the table.

    I don’t believe there’s anything about Obama’s facts that are questionable due to his established history. However, I’m not sure that a birth certificate is really an ideal way of establishing anything specific.

  102. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy February 21, 2015 at 3:10 pm #

    A birth certificate is never properly used to establish identity because it is unreliable for that purpose. That doesn’t stop it from being used that way. That was the problem with Puerto Rican certificates. The certificates were legitimate, but so many were in the wrong hands.

    It is also rapidly becoming obsolete for proving the facts of birth because interconnected state computer systems can do that.

    y_p_w: Personally I think that birth certificates are sort of a weird way to establish identity or even the facts of birth, but perhaps there’s no current practical alternative.