Obama eligibility denialist lawyer Phil Berg issued a press release yesterday thanking the Russian Internet news site Pravda.ru:
Philip J. Berg, Esquire here – WOW ! Thanks to Sam Sewell and PRAVDA for printing what the United States National Media [Radio, TV & Newspapers] has refused, I believe on purpose, to bring forth the facts regarding Obama.
Pravda.ru tends toward nationalist and sensationalist content
According to the Wikipedia, Pravda, one time official news organ for the Soviet government, was officially disbanded after the Soviet Union fell. Former Pravda employees started a new private print newspaper with the former name, and others an unrelated web publishing enterprise, Pravda Online, the publication Berg mentions. Pravda.ru is a tabloid web site tending towards nationalist and sensationalist content, and is not new to birther stories, dating back to December 2, 2008 with its opinion column touting Phil Berg talking points, Barack, the Amazing Mr. Obama, written by old Soviet hardliner [just kidding] Mark S. McGrew.
The unsigned Pravda.ru article yesterday is titled No evidence of Hawaiian birth for AKA Obama. What about Kenya? It cites such sources as Mario Apuzzo’s blog, and includes things that only a birther could love such as:
Obama’s ‘Certification of Live Birth’ form reveals his Birth Registration was FILED in 1961 but was never fully ACCEPTED by the Hawaiian State Registrar’s Office.
One can see the source of Berg’s enthusiasm as the article repeats Berg’s own lawsuit when it describes how Berg’s investigator [sic]:
… then personally went to the hospital in Mombassa, Kenya. He spoke with the Provincial Civil Registrar and he learned that there were records of Ann Dunham giving birth to “Barack Hussein Obama, III” in Mombassa, Kenya on August 4, 1961. The investigator then “spoke directly with an Official, the Principal Registrar, who openly confirmed the birthing records of Senator Barack H. Obama, Jr. and his mother were present, however, the file on Barack H. Obama, Jr. was classified and profiled. The Official explained Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. [sic] birth in Kenya is top secret. [H]e was further instructed to go to the Attorney General’s Office and to the Minister in Charge of Immigration if [he] wanted further information.”
I guess Russia will continue its role as a second-rate power, even in birtherism.
“Pravda” is literally translated “truth” from the Russian, and the other former Soviet newspaper, Izvestia is translated “news” leading to the popular saying: In the Truth there is no news, and in the News there is no truth.”
Nice photo! I laughed out loud.
I have to agree with Sven on this one. The COLB was filed and not accepted because there is no attestation on the vital record application for it to be created. Rather, the contents of the COLB were dictated by a court order after hearing testimony from Barack’s family members. Consequently, the record was filed and not accepted.
Oh, geeze. Not that one again.
Thanks. I was rather proud of it.
States do not issue certified copies of birth certificates until they have fully met the requirements for registration, including attestation. This is obvious since birth certificates are primary documents proving citizenship. One of the things I do in real life is deal with the myriad rules and regulations related to when electronic systems can and cannot print certified copies of birth certificates.
“a tabloid web site tending towards nationalist and sensationalist content”
Quoted from Wikipedia without providing the customary acknowledgement! The good Dr. Conspiracy must have wanted the reader to think that he had developed his own informed opinion. However, if that really was the informed opininion of Dr. Conspiracy, he would have provided links to some examples. He did not.
The first comment presented an opinion that Obama’s birth was filed, but not accepted. Could this be true? Surely Dr. Conspiracy would know if birth registrations in the 60s were filed with the local registrar before being accepted by the State Registrar, and if Dr. Conspiracy had anything other than his own opinion as the basis for forming that belief he would present it. He has not.
Gloria Steinem: “The truth will set you free; but first it will piss you off.”
How many hawaiian birth certificates can you dig up that were filed and accepted?
“States do not issue certified copies of birth certificates until they have fully met the requirements for registration, including attestation.”
Once again, if Dr. Conspiracy had anything but his own opinion for support, he would present it.
Attestation by whom? What attestation would accompany the filing of a home birth? What if further supporting evidence was never provided after a home birth is reported? Dr. Conspiracy would have you believe that people born at home, whose birth was registered as required by law, could not obtain a certified copy of their birth registration. What class of citizenship would Dr. Conspiracy place them in?
If a child is born in the woods, and nobody is around to witness it, and the mother was not under the care of a physician, does that child have no right to citizenship? Does the state have a right to insist that a mother undergo a gynecological exam in order to prove recent birthing?
Sorry about that. The original draft of this article had a link to the Wikipedia article (not a citation of it), but it apparently is was in some text that didn’t make the final version. I will correct that now. Thanks for pointing this out.
The quotation: “In the Truth there is no news, and in the News there is no truth.” wasn’t taken from the Wikipedia article (although I see it’s there) but rather from a comment made by my professor of Russian Language back in 1969.
Yes, I do know that legislation in Hawaii in the 1960’s provided for the creation of local registrars, although I’ve not been able to find an example of such for a birth in the city of Honolulu, the state capitol. However, a local registrar did not issue the Obama Certification of Live Birth, and it was not a local registrar that examined the original birth certificate and stated that it was filed according to regulation and showed Barack Obama was born in Hawaii (c.f. two statements by Dr. Fukino). If the local registrar had accepted the document and the state had not, then the State would not have issued a certified copy.
To say that Obama’s COLB was filed but not accepted is like saying someone’s drivers license was issued but they didn’t pass the written test because it doesn’t say so on the license. You don’t get the certificate until you meet all the legal requirements for it.
My article in this case is not about “date filed” and so it is unreasonable to expect that it be argued here. I have published articles on the topic, however, including
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/02/date-filed-v-date-accepted/ and http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/06/date-filed-v-date-accepted-appealed/
I have over 30 years experience in vital records systems, by the way.
There are some things so obvious that they hardly require support. It is patently absurd to suggest that the State of Hawaii would issue a document that states that it is prima facie evidence in a court of law that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii when they were not fully satisfied as to the facts of event.The fact that the State of Hawaii issued the birth certificate proves that the local registrar (if there was one) or the state itself accepted the registration To suggest that the state issued such a document while its own internal paperwork was pending a final determination, is (in the most charitable words I can think of) disingenuous.
The attestation for a home birth (or any birth for that matter) is the person who witnesses the birth (or in the case of a foundling, the person who witnessed the finding of the baby). In the case of my father’s birth, the attestation was provided by his mother 20 years after the fact. Nowadays, with more cases of vital statistics fraud to be concerned with, documentation requirements of the facts of birth can be more stringent. The bottom line, though, is that you have the required documentation or you don’t, and if you don’t, then no birth certificate.
If you wish to convince, please provide with proof of your statement. All you need to do is find somebody born at home in Hawaii (around the same time period) and have them request a “certified copy of their birth registration” and see what type of form they receive (long, short, could stand to lose a few pounds, etc.). Then you could provide us with the proof of where the Doc and others may be wrong (redacting appropriate info, of course).
If you are correct, this should be rather easy and will prove your case. I anticipate your research results.
DrC, – are “filed” and “accepted” really two separate things? My understanding is that both terms are used, and that the only distinction is which state you’re talking about and when (as states will sometimes change wording as different laws are passed and enacted over the course of time)
What we need to see to answer this question are the policies & procedures that the HI DOH used in 1961 & 2007. The state law just says that these should be developed & implemented, not their details.
The answer is zero because the 1961 Hawaiian long form doesn’t even have a “Date Filed” on it. Since Obama’s COLB is abstracted from the long form, and the long form doesn’t have “Date Filed” on it, that means that the August 8, 1961 date on the COLB is really the date accepted (either by the local or the state registrar — the two dates that are on the original form).
This is what Hawaii Department of Health spokesperson Janice Okubo said:
“Date Filed” is a fiction for a 1961 Hawaii long form birth certificate, however, because all it has are two date accepted boxes (one by the local registrar and one from the state).
Since the state of Hawai’i has published the index data for a birth record for Barack Hussein Obama II and since the entire file of index data for all births occuring in the state of Hawaii in 1961 is available for purchase by anyone at a cost of twenty-five cents per page for a reprograhics fee, and since the state Health Department Director has pubilshed the Index Data for Barack Hussein Obama II on the Department of Health’s website, I think the point about “filed” versus “accepted” is moot.
Here’s a link to the Obama birth records FAQ from the Hawai’i Department of Health’s web site:
I guess that makes your comment “half true.”
“If the local registrar had accepted the document and the state had not, then the State would not have issued a certified copy.”
Please provide documentation to support that claim. I will accept evidence from any state who says they will not issue certified copies of their records just because the final authority refused to accept them as 100% reliable.
It is unreasonable to believe that any state would refuse to provide a certified copy of their records (any records, but especially those) pertaining to a vital event just because the state may have requested but not obtained some piece of additional supporting evidence. Births take place in all areas and during many situations. A birth can take place at home, with no one but the mother sa a witness. There is no law that can require a mother to submit to a subsequent examination. There is no law that requires the mother to have any prenatal care. Simply stated, the only evidence of birth may be the mothers word, and the fact that she has an infant in her possession. The state may not accept that alone as sufficient proof to be accepted as a substantiate fact, but that would not permit them to refuse to file the birth report, or to issue certified copies of that event at some point in the future.
While it is reasonable to assume that a birth could be filed that was not accompanied by a post delivery examination by a physician, it is not reasonable to assume that such filing would be stricken from the books or that the fact that is was filed, and not accepted would permit the state to not issue a certified copy of that registration. The only thing the state could do was declare that the additional supporting was never received. This could be done by not issuing final acceptance of that filing. We are talking about two different events (filing and accepting), and the issuance of a document that could demonstrate one or both stages of that event. The cerification of a copy has nothing to do with the acceptance of that registration. It only serves to provide that the copy was provided by the certifying agency.
It is the job of the local registrar to file the birth report. They examine the report for completeness and accuracy. The local registrar makes copy of the report, puts the entry in the ledger or index, and then sends it to the State Registrar.
“It is patently absurd to suggest that the State of Hawaii would issue a document that states that it is prima facie evidence in a court of law that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii when they were not fully satisfied as to the facts of event.”
It is patently absured to make a statement based solely on your own opinion. The Nordyke twins were born in August 1961. Their certificate of live birth does indicate that their birth registration was accepted by the local registrar. (same city and time period as that alleged by Obama) While terminology has changed, and local registrars subsequently were identified as filing the registration, I have seen nothing to indicate that the State Registrar (or Registrar General) is the person who ultimately accepts the registration.
Maybe it would help if you acknowledged the difference between “prima facie” and “conclusive”. A cancelled check is prima facie evidence that you paid your phone bill last month, but it is not conclusive evidence. By issuing a COLB as prima facie evidence, instead of conclusive evidence, the state is acknowledgeing that it is possible that the COLB is not accurate.
my daughter, like Obama and millions of Hawaiians, have a COLB that says “date filed”, so according to orange monkey she does not hav a valid COLB even thogh the state debunked this old silly birther talking point. Hey orange monkey, go back to birther land.
Racosta: “my daughter, like Obama and millions of Hawaiians, have a COLB that says “date filed”, so according to orange monkey she does not hav a valid COLB even thogh the state debunked this old silly birther talking point. Hey orange monkey, go back to birther land.”
Where did I say or even imply that a COLB is not valid if it only states “date filed”? I made no such statement.
Recent changes to U.S. Law require that the birth be “filed” within a specific period of time. That explains why a COLB only denotes the date that the birth was filed. To attribute any meaning that is more than or less than its intended purpose is absurd.
Besides having a need to reduce any argument to absurdium in order to make your point, you rather uncivil “go back to birther land” statement does better to demonstrate your inabilities, than any deficiency on my part.
“100% reliable” are your words, not mine. I can certainly show you that one cannot obtain from California a certified copy until all the required signatures are in place and evidence of the birth provided. See “How to Register an Out-of-Hospital Birth.”
The “five facts” referenced preceding are:
a. Identity of parent(s)
b. Pregnancy of the mother
c. Baby was born alive
d. Birth occurred in the county where the birth certificate is to be registered
e. Identity of the witness
Thank you for reminding me of the Nordyke certificate, which indeed does have a local registrar’s signature on it. What your whole (rather silly) objection fails to notice, from the Nordyke certificate is that in addition to the local registrar’s signature, there is the signature of the State Director of Health, signed not in 1961, but in 1966 because he is certifying the copy. Likewise Alvina Onaka, the State Registar today placed his signature on Obama’s COLB.
At least by writing long nonsense here you aren’t elsewhere doing something more destructive.
[This comment has been edited to include the reference to the California document.]
I wonder if OrangeMonkey’s handle (Doc could indicate if this is a new sock puppet for one of the regulars) is an indication of a birther who has come to this site intending to fling poo?
orange monkey, a testy birther. reminds me of our old buddy truth. Writing nonsense must be a lot of fun, he should change his handle to “poo filer”!
You, like your regulars, reduce every argument to absurdium. When that fails you, you always rely on snide remarks or ad hominem attacks.
You must be up to what, 20 regulars who provide undying support for the BS you try to pass off as rational argument?
Good day, and thank you providing me the opportunity to present argument to establish the foolishness of your claims.
That’s right. OrangeMonkey hasn’t said anything at all beyond asking disingenuous questions. This is classic troll.
Damn, you’re leaving before I ban you?
Truth? Certainly not. Truth is a decent fellow. Orange Monkey reminds me more of a troll like JTX.
Well, perhaps you should look a little more closely at the Nordyke certificate and note that on the lower right is the block labeled “Date Accepted by the Registrar General.” This is what the Hawaiian Public Health Statistics Act 57-6 (Rev 1959) says:
As far as I can tell, Orange Monkey is a new drive by troll. The disgusting monkey behavior you mention (and some other things monkeys do) may well be a good model for Internet troll behavior. I have a friend who has a PhD in behavioral physiology and studied monkeys at the Yerkes laboratory. I must remember to ask him about why monkeys fling poo.
You know, I’ve never counted. I have around 17,000 visitors (unique hosts) per week, but one never knows their opinion of the site unless they comment.
I think it would near impossible to find any ex-inhabitant of the Sovet Union born before 1980 who does NOT know that joke.
I am probably more pro-Russian than anyone here (up to the point of thinking that South Ossetia has the same rights to independence as Kosovo), and I can assure that Pravda Online is indeed nationalist and sensasionalist. A nice example of that, as asked by Orange Monkey, would be the interview with Yuri Drozdov (not the soccer player, nor the film maker but the 80 years old spy master): “There were foreign agents in Soviet government”> The article is illustrated with a photograph of Mikhail Gorbatchov! Sensationalist much? (By the way, Doc, I did not know about that article when I wrote that comment on Dresden, I assure you – it is pure coincidence). Doc, please add Online Pravda to the Uglies.
By the way, did anyone notice that unlike the normal stories in Pravda Online, this one has no mention of any author, and no link to a Russian version? Looks like Sam Sewell “I fired my Doctors and saved my Life” again bought some webspace to depose his vermin – and then told his wacko friends to go there and overflow the comments section with favourable reviews. Freeping.
Oops, the article with the scandalous Gorbachov photo is actually on a related site:
Pravda Online has a lot of links to Politonline.ru on its main page. And to Georgia Times, a rather crude, probably counter-productive anti-Saakashvili news site.
Sorry about that. Though I still believe the Wikipedia qualification is correct, and Pravda Online clearly has friends which are even weirder than themselves, I retract my suggestion of putting them on the uglies list. Again, the mistake is mine for not including the link which would have made this clear.
Googling Sam Sewell again, it is clear he must be the author of this piece. And another prolific writer with completely different ideas, but of course often as weird and sensationalist as Sewll’s, got his chance to praise Obama only a few days ago:
Of course, again no Russian version. One wonders if the Russians in charge of this online tabloid, have any idea what is going on on the English-language side.
I went to the Pravda site once. There was one rant about “Jewish filth,” so I never went back.
The Russians do not speak German, because of a Jewish man, and they don’t have polio anymore because of two Jewish physicians.
Something else: when Raisa Maksimovna Gorbachev was dying of cancer, the Israelis offered to treat her gratis, but she was too sick for the trip there.
But we’re still “filth.” They can drown their misery in vodka.
I can understand your attitude. But the Russian connection here is virtual. Neither Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, nor Sam Sewell are Russian. They do not even get paid by Pravda Online (and Sam may even be paying to get space). Timothy is definitely not an anti-semite but has a lot of problems with most policies of Israel, and with Bush of course – to the point of going overboard apart from that, he also participated in the silly British tabloid bashing of the Vancouver Winter games. He’s an ex-composer of pop songs and lives in Portugal. Sam Sewell is your average birfer liar and seems to be writing only about Obama these days. The articles both write are op-eds that would not even qualify for a mention on Wikipedia – not trustworthy.
And the immense majority of the comments, even the antisemite ones, seem to be by Americans without any connection with Russia.
Thank you, and greetings from my fageleh, too.
Hey, your leaving without showing the evidence that might prove your point. Yet… I am not surprised.
It doesn’t make much sense to reject a term because it is a legal term. The canceled check example is unique statement. However, it is easy to see why some argue in circles without accepting the obvious conclusion. Obama was born in Hawaii
Isn’t congratulating one’s self like that an act of intellectual masturbation? I fear that Christine O’Donnell would not approve.
We have a winner.
Just curious, has anyone taken the time to do this? If I lived in Hawaii I certainly would. Or would seeing Obama’s name on the birth index simply be irrelevant? Does the index add any information?
Isn’t she the one who is now claiming that she briefly dated a witch?
Plus, she banged him on an altar.
Yes. She also believes that scientists are creating mice with fully-functional human brains. You can’t make this stuff up. She said this on Bill O’Reilly’s show:
O’DONNELL: They are — they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they’re already into this experiment.
I’m surprised that no birther has sprung for the $98 or so that it costs to order the entire 1961 index file. I have no idea if there is any other information aside from what is already released on the FAQ page.
This was also quoted to me by a colleague from Russia over 20 years ago. It is clearly a standard Soviet era acknowledgment of the double talk worthlessness of Pravda and Isvestia.
Birthers hate the President so much that they will gladly join hands with America’s enemies, past & present, if it will help undermine him.
Does anyone else see the irony of using Pravda in an effort to paint the U. S. President as “un-American”? And they somehow claim we hate America…
I’m even more surprised that the birther con sites haven’t pleaded for $50 K from their followers in order to fund their $98 purchase of the 1961 index file. 😉
The article in question isn’t “Opinion” or even article by a columnist but put under “reader feedback.” Berg and others birthers seem to want to act as the article was written by a Pravda columnist. The “reader feedback” attempts to disassemble everything wrong with birther arguments, but just makes more mistakes.
It is interesting Berg didn’t provide a link to the “article” or give the title of the “article”. However, it is just another trick by Berg to seemly imply that it was a article written by the newspaper. Newspapers, all the time print readers feedback, even when they are scant of facts.
Yes, the birth index page from Hawaii containing Barack Obama has been obtained and published by the birthers at the Post & Email blog. Kenya has a public birth index too, but no one has published a page from it.
It’s a comment she made in the 90’s on Bill Mahar’s Politically Incorrect. At the time, she said that they had a “picnic” on a “satanic altar,” which makes me think either the guy was pulling her leg a bit or a poser, as Witches don’t worship satan or have satanic altars, and generally would try to avoid leaving someone with the impression that they did. Personally, I think she just wanted to be able to say she knew about witchcraft so she’d have more credibility in her efforts at trying to decry it, but made the usual mistake of conflating it with satanism proving to those who actually DO know about Witchcraft that she’s just another fundamentalist idiot in that regard.
I wonder what it would cost to get a copy of it? Could be interesting – though birthers will just say that either Kenya purposely didn’t include the page with Obama’s name on it or that “somehow” it was removed from there – even IF the index were shown to be a big bound book that doesn’t allow for the inserting or removal of pages without leaving some kind of telltale sign. In that case, they’d probably just argue that the Kenyan government had the whole book reprinted to eliminate the incriminating entry.
MAYBE if someone were able to get a birther to go with them over to Kenya, have the book brought out to them, have a small sample taken from the page where Obama’s name would most likely have been, as well as from one or two other pages in the book, have a chemist RIGHT THERE (to ensure that no one had an opportunity to swap samples or anything like that) to do some kind of test to validate the physical age of both the paper and the ink used to print the entries and verify that it’s all from 1961, MAYBE they’d have a hard time coming up with a way to discredit it – though you know damn well they’d try.
Who knows, they might even try hiring a soap-opera scribe (a profession well-known for coming up with ways to subvert virtually any kind of test known to man so that the results can ALWAYS be changed if they need to goose a story a bit.)
You – you mean Pinky and the Brain was TRUE????
I’m reminded of Wilhelm II, who on one hand blamed and cursed the Masons and Jews for costing him the war and his throne, and on the other hand was completely aghast and horrified at Krystallnacht. I guess it could go hand-in-hand with race relations over here in the US of A too.
And as Charles Addams would say, “And on the other hand.”
Hey, I married a Witch, nothing wrong with that. Besides, Witches are usually more fun, and with fewer Birth Certificates, and no Long Forms required.
If someone did take the time & money to do this it would be only for their own satisfaction. No birther would ever believe the data as I doubt that HI DOH would take the time to sign & seal every page. The birthers would just cry FAKE!, whatever it contained.
True story: I belong to the Philadelphia witch’s circle. A good friend of mine who is Wiccan, invited me to join.
And she turned me into a newt.
I got better.
Uhhh, you still look rather like a newt.
But I would never be unfaithful to loved ones, exhibit blatant hypocrisy or ever face ethics charges or at least not 84.
But the question is: does he look like the gingrich that stole Christmas?
Even if we accept the claims of such individuals as Orly Taitz that the burden is on Obama to prove the facts of his birth, the presentation of a document that is prima facie evidence of the contents is sufficient to put forward facts to show that the birthers have a case to answer if they wish to assert birth outside the United States.
So, what admissible evidence is there in support of the contention that Obama was born outside the United States? (By the way, this is not the first time that I have asked this question of a birther. If you cite admissible evidence, however, then you will be the first to properly reply.)
Just out of curiousity, assuming I had a check made out to the phone company in the amount of last month’s bill and endorsed by them and deposited in their account, under what scenario could you possibly conclude that I didn’t pay my bill? What other evidence could I possibly provide to show that I paid my bill?
And of coarse that check would hold up in court. Cancelled checks and state issued vital records are pretty solid evidence. Just a fact.
However, OrangeMonkey would make you believe that no matter how much information you provide wouldn’t be enough. You could provide your subsequent phone bill indicating the correct amount was paid, a letter from the phone company and that still wouldn’t be enough.
Right. Because your Grandmother could theoretically pay your bill with Monopoly money to give the appearance of being square with the phone company. A cancelled check means nothing.
It the real world a canceled check is sufficient proof, as it is clear evidence that the amount has been transferred to the recipient. With Orly Taitz it has been accepted that she has settled her fine with only a check that hasn’t been canceled. Image the kind of society would exist if absurdity that some argue was true. Banks like government have worked hard at improving their systems used protect themselves from problems that might arise in their activities. Any of this could be researched by those who have a genuine interest in the history of the subject. However, by those who are more interested in spreading misinformation make things that ignore this simple fact.