On this blog and in the Obama citizenship debate, there is a lot of talk about experts. Birthers have put forward a number of people they call experts by virtue of their own claims or their “above average” familiarity with something (scanners, typesetting, photography, Adobe Photoshop). Anti-birthers deny the expertise of those people, saying that none of them are “certified document examiners,” no recognized scientific methodology was used, and that they are biased.
Most recently Mike Zullo has claimed that a “certified document examiner” (and a Democrat to boot), Reed Hayes, has done a report that in some way says the PDF of Obama’s long form birth certificate released by the White House is not authentic. Mr. Hayes is certified by a national organization, the National Association of Document Examiners. Mr. Hayes describes himself as “court qualified” which I understand to mean that one or more courts have allowed his testimony as an expert witness. I hasten to add that Mr. Hayes’ report has not been published, but in an email to RealtyCheck, he seems to confirm Zullo’s general claim.
Mr. Hayes’ report on Obama’s birth certificate either will or will not be published. If it is, there will be a debate over his certification, his methodology and his expertise. Certification is what I want to focus on (the others unknown at this point). The NADE certification requirements appear to be quite stringent, including a proctored written exam, an oral exam, references, and the submission of a work-up on an assigned case. Once certified, the member may provide services from this list:
- Handwriting Identification
- Deciphering Obliterations
- Detecting Alterations
- Restoring Faded Writing
- Investigating Line Sequence
- Development of Indented Writing
- Ink Differentiation
- Examinations and Reports
- Document Photography
- Exhibit Preparation
- Deposition and Court Testimony
- Consultation
Nowhere is the NADE certification related to electronic documents, so for the purpose the PDF file from the White House, I would not call Mr. Hayes “certified,” and unless he has testified in court about electronic documents (and no one claims he has), I would not call Mr. Hayes “court qualified” for the purpose of authenticating Obama’s birth certificate in electronic form.
Let’s put aside Mr. Hayes and the NADE completely for the rest of this discussion.
I, probably along with most people, thought that a certification in forensics by a recognized national organization is an assurance of expertise. I thought that all such organizations have stringent training requirements, do rigorous testing, have continuing education requirements, and discipline members for misconduct. I was wrong. The largest forensic certification organization in the US, the American College of Forensic Examiners Institute, is, according to a recent Frontline/Pro Publica documentary, little more than a diploma mill with an open-book test so easy that 99% of those who take it pass. A Journalism major from UC Berkeley with no forensic training watched a couple of videos, read a small packet of material, took the open-book test and became a Certified Forensic Consultant in a day.
Even among experts, highly-regarded and rigorously trained fingerprint experts, it has been shown that the same expert will determine that a pair of prints match, and later that they don’t match based on other information about the crime. If the best experts can be influenced by bias, how could we ever expect the birthers to get it right. The point is that certification does not guarantee expertise, nor does having ones testimony admitted in court guarantee expertise (I once sat on a jury and heard two court qualified expert witnesses come to different conclusions). Even real experts can be influenced by bias.
I watched the Frontline/Pro Publica documentary, The Real CSI: How reliable is the science behind forensics? and I am still a little stunned by what I learned about forensic certification, and what is and is not real science in the field. I strongly recommend you watch this. Also see the National Academy of Science report mentioned in the video, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: a Path Forward.
With previous claims about the necessity of providing examiners of the documents, you now switch to a suggestion that not all examiners are qualified.
You are aware that almost all documents today, and for the last 40 years, mostly digitaled stored and digitaled copied or photocopy,meaning that is what is usually analysed as penmanship is almost obsolete and Spencerian seldom taught!
But continue to try to get anyone to confirm anything that would not be assaulted and criticized by both sides!
Best wishes from the Golden State
Besides the fact, that everyone thus far that birthers have toted out has not remotely had any qualifications as an expert on any subject, even genuinely qualified experts have their testimony limited via voire dire (or outright excluded). The biggest problem facing Hayes (well, besides the point that Zullo isn’t releasing the report, and considering WND’s past trustworthiness with giving honest assessments of expert reports, would you really trust anything but the full unedited report) is that he doesn’t have any genuine documents to examine. There really isn’t a whole heck of a lot forensic examination to do when all you have is a pdf on a computer screen.
But hey, Zullo wouldn’t lie to us, would he? Not like he’s been caught in lies before.
How can anyone claim an informational pdf is a forgery without access to the original. In this case many reporters saw the original, one even took snapshots of it. The forensic examiner made no attempts to view or verify the original which is actually still available at the White House. Nor did he make any attempts to contact the press and Savannah, his forgery claim will be laughed out of court.
I was cognizant writing this story of the possibility that I might be accused of moving the goal posts. In a context when you never expect an opponent to even get with sight of a goal post, one doesn’t carefully survey where it should be.
However, the goal post in court (presuming well-funded advocates on both sides–often not the case) is pretty well-defined (See JoZeppy’s comment preceding). In my own writing, I have talked about “junk science” and this is what I have consistently rejected.
It was not the appearance of Reed Hayes that caused me to re-think what “expert” meant, but the PBS Frontline documentary linked in the article. And before anyone accuses me of arbitrarily moving the goal posts, I suggest that they watch the documentary.
I could imagine a scenario where a handwriting expert compared a picture of two signatures and decided that they were written by different persons.
Yep. Everyone’s a critic. What a mess, huh? Thankfully we have laws and institutions that help clear things up and decide which criticism is just and which one is junk. Of course, birthers don’t trust or believe in those laws or institutions, but they’re not in charge of anything.
But wait Doc, why would that matter? Didn’t you JUST have this very discussion here, or did I read it somewhere else? It could be auto-signed, signed with a stamp, signed with an “X”… The only thing that matters is that it is certified as valid, right?
You all sound like a bunch of Obama shills!! If his shit is legit then there was no reason to seal everything from his birth certificate to his school records!!! This fraud has fake ID’s, fake SSNs, and was never vetted!!! The fact that you would even want a fraud for a president is a joke in itself!! You supporting someone with a history mired in corruption intertwined with communist and socialist ties proves how un-American that you are!!! The government in Africa even had special announcements within their proceedings addressing his presidency and one of their own now representing the US! Let us not also make it clear as day no matter even where he is born is also the fact that he is not natural born as his father was not an American. Likewise, in his own brochures and biographies it states clearly he was not an American!! For anyone to now believe he is suddenly an American is a joke!
May a simple question be asked?
If you can not determine whether or not a forgery is a forgery without seeing the original document, would it not also be impossible to tell if the said original document is accurate without seeing it!
Sauce for goose is sauce for the gander!
Or does it seem proper to believe that every document , original, is true and accurate because it is an original.
the fair sex always wants to be fair, and the male sex male!
58* degrees tonight in July
From the original posting
” If the best experts can be influenced by bias, how could we ever expect the birthers to get it right”
With all of the experts posting here how can we ever expect the posters to get it right.
There may be experts here but how can they not be biased as evidenced in posting
In which case “Helen”, I take it you will now be satisfied as to the authenticity of the document considering the multiple statements as well as official signed and sealed verifications provided by the state of Hawaii?
You know, the ones confirming all the information on the BC?
“helen: If you can not determine whether or not a forgery is a forgery without seeing the original document,”
.
the original was viewed by entire WH press corps, plus one took a snapshot (Savanaugh G), so the original was seen and Zullo made no effort to contact these witnesses nor did Reed. So that was a silly investigation.
It doesn’t matter what any “document examiners” say about the long form birth certificate. The only expert who really matters is Alvin Onaka and the only question that matters is does the information on the long form birth certificate match what’s on file at the Hawaii DOH.
so it is a fact then that you have not examined the document in reference, but are accepting the person who is only responsible the security of the document, and , may have never seen the original document, or is not qualified as an expert to satisfy the requirements of have a expert examine in for possible fraud.
Why would you accept the word of the storer of the information as to the accuracy of the submitted infomation is the document never shows signs of being “accepted” by the registrar, if in fact, it was not accepted as others have averred.
the information on the form was attested to by the doctor but not by the HDOH!
Peace be with the forces and let the global warming cease!
Was that a question?
The state of Hawaii is the relevant legal authority that has confirmed that President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4th, 1961.
We accept the word of the relevant legal authority because we are a nation of laws.
You’re welcome.
Exactly.
That has been my most teeth-gnashing pet peeve since the whole thing started. Who cares if the information is written with crayon on toilet paper? Is the information correct or not? The answer is yes, Yes, YES, YES. Over and over and over and over and over. He was born in Hawai’i in 1961; that is it. Pixels on a PDF has jackpoop to do with anything what-so-ever.
Born in Hawai’i. Born in 1961. Two of the eligibility criteria answered. End of story,
“Why would you accept the word of the storer of the information”
.
full faith and credit clause of US Constitution
Helen,
Write a letter to your Congressman with your “concerns” about Obama’s birth certificate then stop fretting about the matter because there’s really nothing more you can do about it.
wow, a resurrection of the old “being accepted” meme
Helen has to be a die hard birther (i.e. delusional)
Using Mr. Hayes’ apparent standards, virtually every pdf ever made is a “forgery.” Although, we’re guessing a bit here since no one has actually seen his “report” other than Mike Zullo.
But anything we can say about Mr. Hayes’ “report” is entirely academic since the only party that can really assert the pdf of Mr. Obama’s LFBC is a “forgery” is the State of Hawaii. Instead, they have stated exactly the opposite. If Mr. Hayes’ “report” has ignored this fact it isn’t worth the toilet paper it’s printed on.
sounds comparable to ivan zatkovich. I don’t know what turned him around so fast.
i’d like to hear his opinion.
maybe even tremblay (jean-claude)… lol
I sense conflict in that too. the hours people have poured into a virtual “document”.
even arduini said no true expert would comment on such a thing. but it was all touted and ok at john woodman’s. so which is it ? isn’t woodman’s “authoritative analysis” definitive ?
there is room for reasonable doubt, and i’m glad I’ve stayed with this, and am not easily run off by a little ridicule.
I always felt the antibirthers’ position is, “we can prove it’s real, you cannot prove it’s not”. hmmm what about that ??
what tangled webs we weave.
Mr. Hayes seems to claim based on a photo of a photo of the painting “Mona Lisa”, the original painting displayed at the Louvre Museum in Paris must be forged. At least, that’s how some people seem to interpret his alleged report.
It seems he obviously didn’t care about his professional life. If he had, he wouldn’t have associated with the CCP in the first place, much less allegedly issue a report. When he testifies as an expert witness in any court from now on, even a rhesus monkey will destroy his testimony and his creditability in a second.
Wait! wasn’t the guy hired by Obama’s attorney as a document expert of some sort in one of Obama other birth certificate cases? I thought that was Mike Zullo claim, and why they place so much value in his accounts.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Zullo has placed a copyright on the 40 page Hayes’ report. If we purchase the next Zullo book we will be able to read the report.
I haven’t read the following information on this site. I thought it would be worthwhile to post it to add to the disscussion. The information is copied from Reed Hayes’ website. Based on his requirements would you consider the report to Zullo a weaker or qualified opinion?
REQUIREMENTS FOR HANDWRITING OR SIGNATURE COMPARISON
Due to a number of internal and external factors, nobody writes exactly the same way twice. It is therefore imperative for the handwriting expert to establish the person’s usual writing habits in order to identify or eliminate that person as the author or signer of a document.
Determining a person’s natural writing style requires a sufficient amount of authentic writing. While each case is different and some examinations require more material, 8-10 comparison signatures are usually sufficient. Some cases can be solved with only one or two genuine comparison signatures. The examiner may need to qualify his conclusion, depending on the nature and amount of material available.
We prefer to examine original documents because photocopies do not accurately reproduce the finer features of handwriting such as pressure patterns, line quality, ink or pen type, etc.
Examination of originals is also necessary in detecting forgeries accomplished by lifting a genuine signature and copying it onto a new document. However, because originals are not always available, it is common for document examiners to render qualified conclusions based on photocopies.
A person’s handwriting or printing habits may change over time. Consequently, the known writing and questioned writing should be relatively contemporary. Ideally, both bodies of writing should be written with a year or two of each other.
Apples cannot be compared to oranges. If a signature is in question, known signatures are required for the examination. If printed material is under investigation, hand-printing is necessary for comparison. If handwritten text is being investigated, handwriting (not printing or signatures) will be required.
Often the quantity and quality of material available for examination does not meet the ideal criteria listed above. A forensic document examination can still be performed, but a weaker or qualified opinion may result.
To: David Farrar – “Wait! wasn’t the guy hired by Obama’s attorney as a document expert of some sort in one of Obama other birth certificate cases? I thought that was Mike Zullo claim, and why they place so much value in his accounts.”
There is no evidence of that.
In Hayes’ online C.V. there is the name of a Perkins Coie attorney the under the heading of “PARTIAL CLIENT LIST”. There is no mention of what case, when it was heard, what it was about, or Hayes’ involvement in it.
http://reedwrite.com/?page_id=11
Are you sure? How would we know it’s not edited or changed, Zullo’s word?
@gorefan ,
Thank you for that information.
So if Mr. Hayes’ CV does have them listed, — if this prima facie statement proves to be true; it would be hard to argue with Mr. Hayes’ credentials, if, and when, he is ever asked to examine Obama’s paper birth certificate; correct?
ex animo
davidfarrar
At most, and only if every birther dream came true, he might be asked to examine the certified copy Hawaii provided The President.
He will never be permitted to access the original, for at least two reasons.
1. It is not legal for him to do so, and
2. There is no reason for him to do so.
Since the certified copies are issued by the legal authority, and the state of Hawaii has verified that the information on them is correct, there’s nothing for him to examine.
There is no conceivable scenario that would result in Mr. Hayes’ being allowed to examine the original on-file vital records for President Obama. It is not ever going to happen.
However the fact that Perkins Coie may have used Mr. Hayes in some capacity in the past, does not mean they could not find objection to using him or to attack his findings in a future case. Expert witnesses can work for attorneys who they previous worked against and vice versa.
Hawaii has never verified the information on the WhiteHouse PDF BC. The Hawaii Verifications that have been produced are misleading, inconclusive and vague.
It depends upon his specific credentials, not his general credentials.
I will give you an example. In a personal injury lawsuit, there may be a dispute about the extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Let’s say that the plaintiff claims that he sustained a herniated disc in his lumbar spine as a result of an accident. The defendant disputes this claim, saying that MRI films show that the plaintiff has only an age-related bulging disc.
The defense will need to hire a medical expert to make that case. Theoretically they could choose any medical doctor who has been accepted as an expert in court. However, they are not going to use a dermatologist, or a rheumatologist, or an endocrinologist. Those are all medical doctors, but they have no expertise in interpreting MRI films. The defense will need to hire a certified radiologist, not simply a certified medical doctor.
Thus, the fact that Mr. Hayes has been accepted as an expert in the past, and even the fact that apparently he was hired once or twice by Perkins-Coie, does not automatically mean that he is qualified to give an opinion about whether the PDF of Obama’s LBFC is an authentic copy. For all we know, the only testimony which Mr. Hayes has given may have been in disputes about whether signatures were authentic. That experience would not mean that he has an expertise in analyzing layers in a PDF.
You do realize, I hope, that Mr. Hayes’ primary field of expertise – handwriting analysis – is considered to be a pseudoscience?
http://www.pbs.org/safarchive/3_ask/archive/qna/3282_bbeyerstein.html
“Are you sure? How would we know it’s not edited or changed, Zullo’s word?”
Jim, as sure as anyone can be relying on a World Tribune article dated July 8, 2013.
“As a precaution against others misusing or manipulating Mr. Hayes’ report, Lt. Zullo has copyrighted it.”
Would Zullo really edit the report?
i think I heard the forty page report is half typed, half written, that savannah Guthrie has a photo of said report.
Well, somebody above already released the 800lb gorilla in the matter. “Full Faith and Credit”.
The truth is, every official document could be analyzed to the nth degree. Even original documents. And these questions wouldn’t always have legitimate motives.
Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution were prescient enough to add this clause to the Constitution.
The State of Hawaii has stated that President Obama’s birth certificate is legitimate. So it must be accepted as valid “on it’s face”. Per the Constitution.. Period.
just a reminder, this is about so much more than just the birth certificate for we birthers. I feel as if obamas’ stories (provenance(s) were constructed after the candidate, instead of the more traditional other way around.
and it’s great to see more opponents coming on board to learn about and discuss the controversy.
that’s true… but there may be other smoking guns, spilling forth.
but there is no point in saying the entire story has played out. no one here knows the future. another gorilla.
No, that is not correct. Just because Mr. Hayes has done work for Mr. Kellenberg, his credentials for examining electronic documents may still be challenged.
But that’s an academic question anyway, because Mr. Hayes will never be asked to examine Mr. Obama’s paper birth certificate. Nor will the report he wrote for Zullo ever be admissible in a court proceeding.
Only the State of Hawaii can assert that a document purported to be an official State of Hawaii document is a forgery. Absent that, Mr. Zullo’s cold case posse “investigation” is going nowhere.
That’s not true. Take a look at the image posted on the White House website:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
Please take note that the heading says State of Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth Department of Health.
Below the information is the certification:
“I certify this is a true copy or abstract of the record on file in the Hawaii State Department of Health”
It is signed by Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D. – State Registrar
So, you see, the state and its Department of Health have certified the information is accurate.
What else do you want?
No.
CarlOrcas: So, you see, the state and its Department of Health have certified the information is accurate. What else do you want?
for a minute, let’s forget about obama – let’s say, as part of the application process for jane doe for job x, is her birth certificate – as a prospective employer or HR i phone HDOH and say “hey, i have ms. doe here and want to confirm her credentials – her BC says she was born on _ , at _, to _ & _, in _ hospital – can you confirm or deny that the data is accurate”
HDOH will either confirm or deny the accuracy of the data –
DONE!!!!!!
That’s not how it works in the real world. First, no agency – state, county or otherwise – responsible for birth registrations has the resources to deal with calls like that for every person applying for a job. It’s also a waste of time for the potential employer if the person has filled out the I-9 form properly. Did you fill out an I-9 for your employer? And, of course, there is the security issue: How would the registrar know the caller was really checking out a potential employee and not misusing some person’s information?
But, most important, the certified copy – like the one on the White House website – is prima facie evidence of the person’s birth and more than sufficient – just like a passport – to demonstrate a potential employee’s citizenship.
could he have passed a background check to be a federal agent.
No, the birther position has always been, “I don’t understand this, so therefore it must be an indication of forgery.” We’ve shown that it’s not an indication of forgery, and then have relied upon the official statements from the Hawaii Department of Health, including “I certify this is a true abstract or copy of the record on file in the Hawaii Department of Health, Alvin T. Onaka.”
To get around that, you have to prove that it’s a forgery. Every time that you’ve tried to prove that it was a forgery, the so-called proofs have been discredited. That’s what John Woodman’s book was about. He wasn’t proving the authenticity of the birth certificate. He was debunking the so-called proofs of birthers.
Remember, it’s the birthers that must prove that it’s a forgery. We don’t have to prove a thing. The birthers are making the claim that the document is a forgery and shouldn’t be believed. They have to prove it. It’s called the burden of proof.
Wrong! HDOH would NOT confirm a birth record under such circumstances. A prospective employer is not on the list of people with a tangible interest in a birth record under the provisionsof Hawaii Revised Statute :338-18(b).
The person named on the birth record can request their own birth record. Phone communication is no proof of a violation of confidentiality.
outside the courtroom it’s a sliding scale. woodman spent hundreds of hours on a virtual image, which led to his being disparaged about it.
the antibirthers touted those conclusions (still do).
I believe that’s a well known fact. now the tune is changing. another red flag.
I have communicated with two different forensic document examiners with other organizations off the record and I infer that graphologists and NADE are not held in high regard within the community. I believe a comparison with NADE’s training and certification requirements with ABFDE’s requirements will support my inference.
ABFDE requires that an applicant train for two years in a laboratory recognized by ABDFE under the supervision of a principle trainer. This is the minimum requirement before submitting an application to the ABFDE credentialing committee to even be allowed to take the certification examination.
ASQDE is one of the larger organizations will not grant full membership unless the member is certified by passing the ABFDE examination process or going through a similar certification process within ASQDE. Until then members are considered provisional status.
NADE on the other hand has no specific training requirements and certification is voluntary. .
This is what ASQDE member David Moore has to say about graphologists and selecting an expert: http://expertpages.com/news/select_document_examiner.htm
Anyone who’s ever watched Court (now True)TV knows that it is the job of opposing counsel to challenge the credentials of anyone proferred as an expert witness by the opposing side and it is ultimately up to the Trier of Fact to either approve or reject a witness as being an expert.
The quick answer is yes. He has already been caught in multiple fabrications of the evidence he has presented, so what difference does is make to him? And, if no one else can see the original verified by Mr Hayes, that it is the complete original report given to Zullo, there is no check…Mr Zullo is free to characterize the report any way he wishes. Any day now, send money.
What, exactly, are you referring to when you say “this prima facie statement”?
And whatever became of this, anyway?
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated
Birther morons like to pretend they understand law.
How exactly has the tune changed? Antibirthers have been consistent in saying that you cant claim something is a forgery based on a digital image of a paper document. Woodman actually spent real time on his analysis as opposed to going with people who supported his position. Why is it the clown posse dismissed him outright while giving more weight to nonexperts like irey and zebest
Whatever gave you that idea, David?
There is no controversy. Youve imagined all of this. Its funny how you have nothing to support that claim. Actually it was George w. Bush who loudly proclaimed he was a media creation.
Well “I feel” that you’re a Welsh Corgi.
Since we’re going on what we feel now, that makes me right apparently. I assume that’s the idea that your dementia-addled brain is trying to spit out. Fact and rule of law is irrelevant so long as birthers “feel” that they are right? Correct?
Help me, John. You apparently have powers of perception that I don’t. Take a look at this website prepared by the Hawaii Department of Health:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
It begins “On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.” and goes on at length to verify that the information in the scanned document is correct and that President Obama was, in fact, born in Hawaii and is, in fact, a natural born citizen.
Help me understand just how it is “misleading, inconclusive and vague.”
Thank you.
David, and his erstwhile lawyer, don’t understand the meaning of the terms they use. They heard obots using the term prima facie in reference to President Obama’s birth certificate and believe that these are magic words which make evidence unquestionably true. David keeps using this term regarding any birther “evidence” he’s talking about hoping that the “spell” will take and a judge will be forced to accept that evidence as true, failing to understand that all he is doing is making it painfully obvious that he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. A perfect example of “cargo cult” lawyering.
Until you can prove something your feelings mean nothing.
And pigs may learn to fly and then there will be pig feces “spilling forth” from the sky.
Again confusing statements abound in this circle of thoughts.
Hawaii can only certify, and ,has certified, that the certified copy is a copy a document on file in the HDOH.
It a wonder that anything gets resolved in this world, when both sides mistate the position being discussed.
Normally, when a dispute about a document, whatever it may be, is occuring the parties, both sides desire litigation, arbitration, or negotiation to ensure that the document is accurate and capable of being understood.
Here you have a dispute where one side says a copy is accurate, the other side says it is false, ;and the first side does not want to have it investigated in any way.
And as the prevailing position , which ever side it would be, has never seen the actual document, is a turmoil in a teapot.
Join together and expose the truth by having a court supoena the document for analysis by a neutral party, and settle the argument.
Enjoin the sun today , for tomorrow it may rain!
I don’t know. I do know that he passed the background checks that are done to be a President of the USA.
helen: “Here you have a dispute where one side says a copy is accurate, the other side says it is false, ;and the first side does not want to have it investigated in any way.”
No, what you have is the State of Hawaii saying they have the President’s records and everything is in accordance with State of Hawaii laws and the other side saying “LIAR”. Big difference there H.
This may be a tricky concept for you to understand, but there is no dispute.
The fact that there is no dispute is why most of the birther cases have been thrown out of court. A dispute arises when one party does something specific that individually injures another particular party. No one has claimed such a specific injury, but only a diffuse injury suffered by “the voters” or “the taxpayers” and only an injury claimed by a minority of those classes.
This is a squabble between birthers and anti-birthers and none of us have standing to raise this squabble to the kind of dispute where there is a court decision or arbitration.
You say that your opponents oppose any kind of investigation. That’s not true. CNN did an investigation, and I applauded it. Birthers used junk science, misrepresentation and ignorance to put out some crank theories about Obama’s birth certificate, NONE OF WHICH stood up to close scrutiny. The Cold Case Posse did everything in their power to shut off any input that contradicts what they were trying to prove even to the point of publishing fake evidence that was debunked on this blog before they “discovered” it on a birther blog. No one thinks that kind of investigation is right.
Being, according to normal usage, either a copy or an abstract of the document,I don’t know whether the certification is for the stated copy, or of an unstated abstract.
One concern of mine ,which may be easily satisfied, is an explanation as to why the original LFBC from whitehouse, or whatever, has a straight bottom line and a curved upper line.
Having worked with bound volumes, I do not know how they scanned it an got one curved line and one straight line if the document is still in the bound volume of documents,
If fact, the simple mind of mine, does not see how that could happen even if taken out of the bound volume.
You need not explain as , in that matter, if the matter is too deep for the simple minds to understand
They remind me of those old Universal monster movies, and all that silver, garlic and holy water business. So do sovereign citizen nuts, of whom there is a large overlap into birtherisim.
Name one document that Obama sealed, how he sealed it and the date it was sealed.
Please come up with an answer before you come back.
Prima facie after looking it up
[Latin, On the first appearance.] A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.
In common parlance the term prima facie is used to describe the apparent nature of something upon initial observation. In legal practice the term generally is used to describe two things: the presentation of sufficient evidence by a civil claimant to support the legal claim (a prima facie case), or a piece of evidence itself (prima facie evidence
Now, reading that it is a presumption that may be disproven!
Now if it can be disproven then it can not be absolutely correct.
Or is it simply that you want to believe it to be absolutely true and refuse to consider any challenge to the document
So to say it is gold is wrong, as it may be foolsgold after testing.
Female minds are different,aren’t they.
Why is it assumed to be as true as the sun rising in the east in the morning, which is a fact!
Except of course on other worlds.
I think you’ve clearly described your dilemma. Since this thugocracy offers no recourse, the only thing you can do is withdraw your financial support for it by refusing to pay your taxes and withdraw your ethical support by refusing to obey laws that the usurper has signed since illegally assuming office.
I beg your pardon, but there’s nothing inherently “female” about that kind of thinking.
What it means is that the court must take it as correct unless YOU can show, by weight of substantive, objective evidence, that it is not.
I.e. the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.
Speculation drawn from conjecture, or to put it in words you might be able to understand, “shoulda/woulda/coulda” simply doesn’t cut it. The Cert. copy of the BC is legally correct until you PROVE that it is not.
And that, in a nutshell, is the main reason you birthers have 207 losses in court, and ZERO wins. It is why you will continue to lose, because you can’t seem to get it through your thick skulls that dripping and moaning that “it just doesn’t seem right” is never going to cut it.
The only thing which is relevant to Obama’s eligibility is the fact that he was born in the United States. You have no evidence to the contrary, so you have nothing.
Helen, as is common with birthers, you’re blinding yourself to facts. First, if every time a document is questioned, a court case ensues, we’d never get anything else done. There has to be a GENUINE controversy, not a fake one ginned up by political hyperpartisans.
Just what would be the legal basis of subpoenoing the vault copy of the birth certificate? Hawaii officials have certified time and again that the info on ther certified copies made public matches the info on the documents stored in the DoH. The Cold Case posse, headed by proven liar Mike Zullo, hasn’t changed the game.
No genuine controversy has been raised. Under your lax standards, anyone at any time could assert that something is a fake, and the other state should, in your view, submit to a court determination. It’s like if someone were to assert decades later that he’s the real owner of my house, and without presenting any probative proof, demand a court decision. No society could function effectively if everyone was entitled to his own courtroom fishing expedition without presenting any valid evidence.
Under your standards, anytime one of my kids needed to present a birth certificate, any nut off the street could come in and challenge its validity based on your idea that the document certifies only that the county clerk’s office where that child was born can only certify that it has records that indicate my child was born in this county, but not that he or she was actually born here. Is the standard that if no one in the clerk’s office was around to attest to the child’s birth when it occurred, the document is legally suspect? What rot!
.
@scott e:
“just a reminder, this is about so much more than just the birth certificate for we birthers. I feel as if obamas’ stories (provenance(s) were constructed after the candidate, instead of the more traditional other way around.”
Obama was interviewed in 1981 when he became the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was a Illinois state senator for multiple terms, he had written two best sellers, was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, was elected US Senator for Illinois in 2006, he posted a copy of his birth certificate online prior to his election as US president in 2008, he posted a copy of his LFBC in 2011, and the HDOH issued three official Verifications of his LFBC prior to his reelection as president 2012.
What more do you want?
You may be essentially correct!
But many seem to believe that the HDOH created these birth certificates and know what in on them.
the Duty of the HDOH is to COLLECT,COMPILE AND STORE the documents.
They have no hand in creating them and can not themselves verify anything about the contents of the document.
In fact,the State of Hawaii will expressly deny the truthfulness of any document or legall status of any document in the HDOH they did not create!
@Helen
“Hawaii can only certify, and ,has certified, that the certified copy is a copy a document on file in the HDOH.”
That is all there is. Nothing further is necessary.
Why do you think that you have to present a birth certificate for you daughter in the first place, the school has to verify that she is entitled services, and that is what it is for.
And if your child is black and the bc shows white it will be investigated.
Smile and think happy thoughts.
That doesn’t make a bit of sense. How could it be a copy of an “unstated abstract”?
The image on the White House website is a scan of the original certified Certificate of Live Birth that was copied by the Hawaii Department of Health from the bound volume where it is kept onto the safety paper that you see and to which the certification stamp and seal were applied.
The curve is from that process not from anything the White House did and I see it from the left top of the form to the left bottom as I assume it was held in the binder. Nothing looks out of the ordinary to me.
You’re overusing the word simple.
That is easy. The certification is for the document to which the certification is attached.
In this case the document is the Certificate of Live Birth, which is not an abstract.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
The Certification of Live Birth, aka “the short form,” is an abstract.
http://cdn.list25.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/obamabirth.png
Hawaii has certified both the Certificate of Live Birth and the Certification of Live Birth.
Everyone could smile and think happier thoughts if you would use the quote back function on the editor so we know what you are talking about.
My birth certificate doesn’t show if I am black, white, or any other color, and there has never been an investigation about it. It was good enough to get me into school, good enough for me to apply for a Social Security Number, good enough for me to get a driver’s license, good enough for me to register for the draft, good enough for me to enlist in the U.S. Navy, good enough for me to be given a Top Secret security clearance, good enough for me to register to vote, and good enough for me to get a U.S. passport.
@Helen
“And if your child is black and the bc shows white it will be investigated.”
Since birth certificates don’t list race of the child, don’t see how that could be a problem.
First of all, kudos on actually looking up the term prima facie. Maybe you could suggest to David that he do likewise…
Let’s look at what you found: “A fact presumed to be true unless it is disproved.”
In other words, the facts given on President Obama’s COLB and LFBC are presumed true—in particular, that he was born in Hawai’i in 1961 (the only facts relevant to his eligibility). Since no evidence (meaning evidence which would be admissible in court rather than baseless birther speculation and lies) has ever come to light which calls these facts into question, every US court must BY LAW* presume that President Obama was born in Hawai’i in 1961.
Why are you unwilling to accept the rules laid out in the Constitution?
* Namely the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and the federal rules of evidence.
Have you reviewed the Nordyke’s BCs? They also have more of a curve at the top than the bottom.
Proof? Perhaps you have a link to a BC from the States, that shows the child’s race. BCs from South Africa show race, but BCs in the States do not. Perhaps you have a BC from South Africa, or the Soviet Union.
The time has come, the walrus said
To speak of many things
Of shoes, of ships, of sealing wax
Of cabbages and kings.
And why the sea is boiling hot,
And whether pigs have wings.
Never seen a birth certificate which lists a person’s color. Maybe in whatever racist country you live in that’s an item on a BC, but not in America.
However, that example still doesn’t help you because that BC has something that is substantively and objectively wrong. There is no such thing on Obama’s BC you can point to.
“We don’t like him so there’s gotta be something wrong” isn’t going to cut it in a court of law… hence your 207 straight losses.
Arthur is correct. In fact, everyone who comments here can say they do the same.
Helen, did you know you can put your income taxes into escrow, to be released once Obama is not in office? It’s perfectly legal. Arthur and the others here can go into more detail of what we have done.
I say, take the bull by the horns.
Now why would I do that?
Do you have an explanation or just a reference to another copy of something?
How can a person comment as to the accuracy of a document that she has never seen?
Yes! Check out this BC: http://tinyurl.com/phwo85h
Daniel July 28, 2013 at 12:13 pm
Once again, nobody has testified, or certified, that the information contained on Obama’s pdf image of his Hawaiian birth certificate is ‘correct’. All they have certified is that it is the same information they have in their file. This is why it is important to have a birth certificate that can provide, usually, a wealth of other, independent, corroborative evidence that would prove by the preponderance of evidence that Obama was born when, and where, he and his certificates state. Unfortunately, Obama’s birth certificate has no probative value at all as to when and where Obama was born, and must be cast aside and seek his natal records.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I’ve never sent the original US Constitution (and if I did, it would be through thick glass and I couldn’t touch it, or get my own forensic document examiner to go over it), but I have it on good authority that it exists and that it is authentic. I can find nice photos of it at the National Archives. Similarly, the State Health Department of Hawaii, who are the state archivists of birth records in the state say they have Obama’s record on file, that they have provided the President with a Certified copy, and that Obama posted it on his web site.
Now granted, more people have seen the Constitution than have seen the President’s birth certificate, but the principle is the same. Those who are entrusted with keeping the original records attest to the existence and authenticity of both.
Meanwhile birthers make up one story after another, none of which ever holds up to close scrutiny.
Hawaii DoH, Vital Records: (808) 586-4533. Let us know what happens.
ex anum
mishamarinsky
Doc you’re not being fair. It’s obvious birthers have seen a different constitution than the rest of us which is why they commonly get simple concepts wrong.
the powers of obsevation in females exceeds that of some mail.
the COLB 2008 refers to prima facie, the LFBC does not!
Is it because the COLB is a government created document and the LFBC is not a government created document
That intrigues the female mind and wonders if the LFBC, itself, is indeed entitled to prima facie status.
I would agree that certified copies of said documents would be prima facie evidence that the document is recorded in the files, and contains that infomation, but , whether the LFBC brought
into court would not be prima facie evidence other than being the original copy.
As fraud seems to have been evident in the field, I would not think it be entitled to prima facie evidence of the accuracy of the document.
As Puerto Rico threw out it bcs before2010 I wonder about. How could a government claim too many of their bcs were fake to be honored.
I don’t understand your comment. You’ve seen the certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate. The State of Hawaii said:
“On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a certified copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth.”
I would suggest that you quit playing word games and just come out with it and say that the State of Hawaii, both under Democratic and Republican administrations is part of the conspiracy. And you can make the conspiracy bigger and bigger so that you can discount every item of evidence. But don’t pretend that you are citing facts or making sense. Saying that in front of informed and rational people is a TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.
So David, your basic argument is your birth certificate is useless. And if your natal records show you were born where your BC shows you were born, it becomes useless too. All because I don’t believe them.
I have the same problem with my mail.
I think we need his kindergarten records. Maybe pre-school. What are they hiding?
Yes you can see the Constitution but there is no dispute about it , as it is in full view.
You can not see a photo, or the original, of the BC only digital copies, which some claim are not to be trusted as they are digital copies and not worthy of examination
Damned if you do , damned if you don’t, and the resutls are useless.
A simple photograph of the document in its binding in black and white would be helpful, but probably would be criticized by both sides.
NO SOLUTION IS POSSIBLE
On April 27, 2011 President Barack Obama posted a pdf file of what he purports to be his Hawaiian birth certificate.
If you have the source of your quote, please provide it, so we all can look at what, or who, said what.
And it would be nice if Dr. Sinclair was still alive so he could give us what we all need to put this out this matter to rest: his independent testimony. But, oh wait! Dr. Sinclair, if he was still alive, would not be able to tell us his story because he couldn’t do it without Obama’s permission, just like he is preventing access to his natal records.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Show me one BC that has more than Obama’s
Hasn’t stopped you yet…
Obama’s BC was on public display at his campaign HQ during his first Presidential election campaign. If you were too lazy to go and see it it’s pretty disingenuous of you to complain now that you can’t see anything but a digital copy.
And what makes you think you have any right to demand proof of Obama’s eligibility anyway? You’re not the body mandated by the Constitution to determine his eligibility. Congress, the body that is so mandated, has confirmed it.
We have the BC, we have Congress’ certification, the Constitution is satisfied. Your delusions are irrelevant.
@misha
I do that . my husband calculates the taxes adds $1,000 ;and sends a check to IRS.
They hold the excess and pay me interest on it that exceeds the bank interest!
President Obama has been elected twice, and he will serve until the end of his term. Solved.
And I doubt you will, at least not on a modern one. According to the U. S. Vital Statistics System: Major Activities and Developments, 1950-1995:
“The birth certificate does not provide for the reporting of race of the newborn.”
States generally base their certificates on the US Standard Certificate (which is what is meant in the citation preceding). Even my 1950 birth certificate from Alabama where racial segregation was a matter of law, does not list my race.
Prior to 1989, tabulations were done by the race of the newborn, but that race was derived from the race of the parents, not taken from a newborn race item on the certificate. After 1989 the tabulations were based on the race of the mother (that race being self-reported by the mother as what she considers herself to be).
It’s the first sentence in the Hawaii Department of Health Obama FAQ:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
I always have a source. You should know that by now.
And if Dr. Sinclair wre alive and testified to the details of birth, you’d just add him to the conspiracy. Face it David, there is simply no amount of objective and substantive evidence will ever be enough to convince you. Given that, why would anyone bother to indulge you, least of all anyone in authority?
And as to your other stupid comment. Obama is NOT preventing access to his natal records. Obama cannot grant access to his natal records. This has been explained to you many times before. Your inability to grasp that simple concept only serves to illustrate your dishonesty.
By whom?
What kind of american citizen thinks a woman does not have the right to petition the government?
What makes you think that the original bc was ever in D.C.?
Misogynist!
When you can not give answers assault the posters!
Actually, Donald Trump did it right when he first held up his hospital (natal) birth certificate. This is where the record begins, and from where the state first gets its information to produce a birth certificate. He then produced his state birth certificate, which, oddly enough, accurately reflected the same information as did his natal birth certificate. They both, when taken together, prove Trump was born when and where he states.
This isn’t rocket science. All it takes is a few independent, corroborative pieces of evidence to seal the matter.
ex animo
davidfarrar
@helen July 28, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Interesting, please cite your source. Thank you.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I have better than a layman’s knowledge of HIPAA, although I am not an expert.
It is my opinion that Dr. Sinclair, if he were alive, and presuming he had been retired since 2003 when the HIPAA Privacy Rule was announced, would not be covered by the prohibition on disclosure. The Rule only applies to providers, insurance companies and claims clearinghouses. A doctor retired since 2003 would not be any of those. A Hospital, of course, is a provider and is covered.
I haven’t kept current on HIPAA since I retired, but at that time it was a gray area whether HIPAA privacy restrictions applied to medical data developed before the adoption of the rule, and whether it applied to the deceased. My reading at the time was that most institutions assumed that the rule applied in both cases, and applied it equally to all records they held.
That’s true. If they don’t believe Onaka, why should they believe Sinclair (David, not Larry)?
Really? How do you know it’s the real one? Is there anyone alive today that can tell us that? No.
Why would you trust the government to tell you the truth about any document it has?
Can you look yourself in the mirror and say that?
Do you think we’re that gullible?
David Farrar: “This isn’t rocket science. All it takes is a few independent, corroborative pieces of evidence to seal the matter.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Hey David, the matter’s been sealed. The President is in the WH. That a few malcontents don’t like it, doesn’t matter. Let me say this again, your opinion does not matter. While we’re on the subject of evidence, what evidence do you have that the President was NOT born in Hawaii? None? That’s what I thought.
How would the “simple photograph” differ from the image that was copied onto the safety paper by the Hawaii Department of Health?
So……………what do we do?
The original Constitution is not on display and is kept in the National Archives. There is no dispute about Obama’s BC either as the issuing authority says they issued it and have verified it publicly. Have you seen any other president’s Birth certificates while they were in office?
This is one of those rare Obot rumors that doesn’t have a source that I know of, and as best I can tell, isn’t true. The only “public” display of the 2007 certificate was to two journalists from FactCheck.org who photographed it.
I suppose showing something to a journalist and letting them photograph is is a kind of “public display” but isn’t how the phrase is normally used.
Yes, that’s why I ask for it. Unfortunately, neither the courts, nor I can, accept that statement as a certified statement.
If you have Mr. Alvin Onaka’s certified statement to this effect; we would still be facing the same problem: all that has been verified here is that that is the information the state Hawaii has in its file. The fact that none of this information can be crossed-checked with at least one independent piece of evidence is reason enough to ask for his natal records.
ex animo
davidfarrar
That’s my kind of guy.
So ask. Keep asking. Ask in one hand and spit in the other and see which fills up the fastest. By the way, who’s the President of the United States?
And by the way, whatever became of this?
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/i-will-file-against-mitt-romney-if-he-is-nominated
By these people:
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01922/W_G-in-Anti-Pesto_1922431b.jpg
Ah….the infamous Anti-Pesto Posse! Tough bunch.
Now, now misha, they’ll only accept the word of THEIR investigators!
http://gammillustrations.bizland.com/monsterkid5/5_images/dizzydet1.jpg
How did the information get into the state’s files, David? Who filled out the form and sent it to the state?
What other “natal records” are you looking for?
Well you might do it to see that birth certificates from that time period exhibit the same curvature that you are curious about. That might lead you to the realization that the curvature that you find to be suspicious is in fact normal. Once you understand that, it actually is easy to understand how it could happened.
I’ll give you a hint but frankly I don’t have a lot of hope that you will be able or willing to figure it out.
Hints:
There is more information on a 1961 Hawaiian birth certificate than is shown on the White House PDF.
Don’t think of the bound volumes as being hard covered but think of them as sot covered.
What “independent, corroborative pieces of evidence” would satisfy you?
Sheesh.
A) You would think you would know that quote by heart by now.
Or B) Take the clue from Dr. C noting that “The State of Hawaii said:”…
or C) Barring that, you would think you could just do a google search. It happens to be the first result.
Well, here you go. It’s the first sentence on the page.
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Daniel: And if Dr. Sinclair [were] alive and testified to the details of birth, you’d just add him to the conspiracy.
Dr. Conspiracy: That’s true. If they don’t believe Onaka, why should they believe Sinclair (David, not Larry)?
and i guess eleanor nordyke is lying too:
“I entered the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on early Friday afternoon, August 4, 1961. I was registered and my expected twins were given Hawaii State birth certificate numbers 10637 and 10638. My labor was slow with poor contractions from a distended uterus.”
“Apparently, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama came in shortly after I arrived, because her baby was registered as number 10641. Her labor was strong, and she delivered Barack Hussein Obama early that evening. The next morning my contractions strengthened. The twins finally emerged at 2:05 and 2:12 p.m. Saturday, August 5th. By the way, I don’t want to do that again!”
Obama and the Nordyke girls also wound up in the same classes at Noelani Elementary School and later at Punahou School from the seventh grade to graduation in 1979.
Correct up to a point. They also have the duty to provide certified copies to those with genuine, lawful, vested interests in the document; pro-actively protect them from unauthorized access; and most importantly pro-actively protect them from damage.
That is not entirely accurate as it depends totally on what you are referring to as ‘the document’.
The HDoH is not responsible for creating vital records, that is quite true; but they do create birth certificates and verify that the information on the certificate is a true copy of the record of birth in their archives. That is what ‘certification’ means.
The record of birth that they store in their archives is not created by them. That record, however, is not a “birth certificate”. It is indeed a record of the facts about the birth, but it contains NO certification what-so-ever.
A birth certificate is a completely separate document that contains the information form the record of birth and a certification that the information on that document is true. The HDoH most certainly does create Birth Certificates, and they are the only legally authorized agency to do so.
There is no requirement that a birth certificate must look exactly like the archived birth record nor that a birth certificate must contain every piece of information that is on that source record of birth (in fact the law requires information on the birth record that cannot be included on the birth certificate).
The information on a birth certificate is set by law; the format that the information is displayed on the document is set by departmental policy. Both the Hawai’ian Standard birth certificate (the so-called ‘short-form’) and the Hawai’ian non-standard old-fashioned birth certificate (the so-called ‘long-form’) are 100% legal birth certificates, neither is “more legal”, and neither is “more acceptable” than the other.
When the Department creates a document with the information on it, no matter what method was used to produce that document, whether typewriter, photocopy, computer printout or whatever, it is not a birth certificate until the certification is applied. A birth certificate is a copy of the information from the record of birth that bears the certification of the HDoH that the information is a true copy from the record of birth in their archives. To be official, it must also bear the State Seal (not just an image of the seal, it must be 3D or otherwise clearly original and not a photocopy) and the various security tokens as provided by law and policy, such as security paper, watermarks, holograms, or what-ever. The HDoD absolutely MUST ‘verify’ that the information on the birth certificate is a true copy of the information on the source record of birth. Agan, that is exactly what ‘certification’ means.
A photocopy of an actual official birth certificate is NOT itself a birth certificate – it doesn’t bear the entire certification; for a start the seal is not 3D. A PDF image of an actual official birth certificate is NOT itself a birth certificate, for much the same reasons. Both are, however, images of an actual birth certificate, and it can be seen that they are images of actual official birth certificates. The actual paper document bearing the official certification may be required to obtain a passport, but a PDF image of a birth certificate is adequate to show 300+ million Americans what that official birth certificate looks like and to see that the information on it is exactly the same that has been reported all along.
Before inexpensive copying technology was available, birth certificates were prepared by hand and could never possibly look anything like the source record of birth. Since the advent of computer storage, most states issue computer generated birth certificates that look nothing like the original record of birth.
Many states now have the ability to have the record of birth entered electronically by the hospital and no physical document of that record will ever exist. Birth certificates will be prepared directly from the computer database. A photocopy of the ‘original source record’ is not possible in this case, because no original paper document exists.
I don’t know,do you think it willl be different. I don’t think it willl be different, but it is possible, not probable,that there would be a difference in something that might be important.
Peace onto you and yours
If by “natal records” you mean the hospital birth records, you are out of luck. In Hawaii, the medical records of minors must be retained for ten years after the minor reaches the age of 18. This means that the hospital records for Obama’s birth were almost certainly destroyed sometime after he reached the age of 28 in 1989.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEkQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.healthit.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fappa7-1.pdf&ei=yMT1Uf_XLriv4AOmhIH4Dg&usg=AFQjCNHgPNPPZV3_9ZVxj5r_wZ0wzXXSkg&sig2=kAWJpoG_F-5i0bpgK6LUuA&bvm=bv.49784469,d.dmg
How do you know that the information on your birth certificate is accurate?
You have seen a scanned image of Obama’s birth certificate, have you not?
Can you identify any particular data item on that image that you can demonstrate is false?
Curved lines or straight lines at the top or bottom of the scanned image are totally irrelevant – they are clearly artifacts of the scanning process – or not, it doesn’t matter. It could have been printed on toilet paper, who cares?
What matters is the information on the document. Is the information inaccurate? Hawai’i says it is, many, many, many times. Do you have any proof that any data item, as reported on the image is incorrect?
@keith
So much information,and so much opinion, that it starts to confuse.
First, the birth certifiate form is provided by the state to the birth centers, and it is multi-paged but the first page has the title “BithCertificate”
And this form is the one that is signed by the doctor and patient.
It is provided blank and completed by the delivery center and then submitted to the registrar.
No governmental official , except for the military has anything to do with the insertion of information onto the document except to show date of receipt and number.
It is a birth certificate when it is accepted and filed, nothing the government can do to change that fact!
It is not certified, but simply registered when the number is inserted and the document is file.
the federal government is so concerned about the birth certificate blanks that they have issued instruction to not make the blanks available to the public.
The Birth Certificates are filled out and completed by the public,not the government!
the government collects them, compiles them , and stores them. Nothing else.
Do you think that the government forges the signatures on the original? Or forges them on the certified copy.
Sorry, Helen, but that doesn’t make a bit of sense.
I don’t know if the information,data,is correct,or wrong.You can not determine that until you have information to verify or contradict the information.
I can say that if I were the attesting doctor I would not have signed it as it presently appears!
But,then again,I believe accuracy in typing and documents. You might not.
My clerks were required to submit perfect copies of documents to be mailed or delivered.
Helen: “So much information,and so much opinion, that it starts to confuse.”
.
no confusion, Obama is the President till he leaves office in 2017, at that time he will have buildings, naval ships, and schools named after him. His place in history is well established, where will you be? Birthers, the joke of history.
.
the BC issue has been over for some time now, except for a few malcontents and the delusional this issue is merely a silly joke. Visit any government building including the post office, you will see President Obama picture labeled “President”. displayed. As for you, your picture has the caption “what me worry” on a magazine cover.
Yes, she may be lying! You do not get birth certificate numbers before the birth of the child, and she says she got birth certificate numbers for her expected children.
The numbers are a problem in the problem
The numbering stamp is not in the hospital
But she might not have known that, so I don’t consider it a lie.
Why?
Do you have a degree in pre-med?
So which Hawaiian hospital were you working at in 1961?
A high-resolution scan of the photocopy is available (courtesy of The Obama File) and it explains a lot of what is “seen” in the PDF .
Very good information for review.
I am a Wiccan. By faith and definition I am not a misogynist.
I never said a woman cannot. You are misrepresenting me and committing false witness. In fact I never said that anyone could not petition the government, let alone resorting to separating by gender. You have the right to petition the government on any foolish delusion you wish. The government has every right to ignore you for any petition on any subject for which you have no right of access to the information you demand.
The original birth record was not in DC. I never said it was. What I did say is the original birth certificate, which is an entirely different thing, and which is a legal document that is prima facie proof of the contents of the birth record, was on display at the Obama campaign HQ. Again, if you were too lazy to go down there and examine it yourself, that is hardly Obama’s fault.
And if you have this amount of difficulty in following a simple line of dialogue, perhaps you should reconsider whether you should be attempting to debate with people who obviously have a better grasp of the English language than you.
I just got a jury duty notice for the 3rd week of August. I have high hopes for some dueling expertise. And something more exciting than a sham car wreck case this time ….
Has Zullo offered up a history of Hayes certification and party affiliation? If I recall correctly, he has some history as a graphologist. But was his party affiliation and document expertiseship pasted on as he was prepped for this role in the Cold Cut Posse Charade?
Such as?
http://www.theobamafile.com/_images/BirthCertificateHighResolution.jpg
I’ve seen it many times. Now…again: What is the “information for review”?
The clarity of the document. The consistent form of the numbers 10641 unlike the PDF. The consistent form and flow of the signatures unlike the PDF. First time I’ve had a chance to review.
Helen,
It’s only the powers of your confirmation bias and your intellectual dishonesty that exceed mine.
It’s higher resolution. It will be clearer than the lower resolution PDF. No secret there.
I told Helen that I have the same problem with mail.
It’s a secret if you’ve never seen the photocopy. Now….again the document itself is interesting to review alongside the PDF.
I’ve never seen the Mona Lisa. Is it a secret?
As far as reviewing them…..what is the point? They’re the same thing but with different levels of resolution, color saturation, etc.
What do you find so “interesting”?
I’ve seen Lady with an Ermine, by Leonardo da Vinci. NOT a joke.
The so-called “hospital birth certificate” is a souvenir given to the parents. The record doesn’t begin with that piece of paper, it begins with the blank form from the DOH (or whichever agency in the state collects the info). Someone fills out the souvenir from the form, not the other way around. There’s plenty on the official form that isn’t on the souvenir — like Doctor’s sig, a host of health information, witness signatures, etc. the souvenir is just something to take home with the baby.
Except that the photostat of the state birth certificate which Trump produced isn’t certified and doesn’t have a raised seal. If Obama had released an uncertified photostat, you birthers would be raising even more of a hissy fit.
http://d1xcqlxj49e9dd.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Trump-Birth-Certificate-original1.jpg?c467c2
Why does an uncertified birth certificate for Trump satisfy you, but two certified birth certificates for Obama do not satisfy you? Why do you hold Trump to a lower standard?
You’re one ahead of me on da Vinci paintings! Where did you see it….Poland?
Take a wild guess.
Let me double check. Quick guess: Looks to me like the difference is that Trump is not black and Obama is.
National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.
Cool.
If you do not know the answer to that simply review this site in detail. If you don’t want
to do that simply use your brain and decide how the numbers could be sequential in the state files if each hospital had their own numbering stamp!
@startibfast.
“It may not say so on the document, but, as a certified document from the Hawai’i DoH, I believe it is also prima facie evidence in any US court of law. In any case, the only relevant information on it (date and place of birth) is the same as that on the COLB, so if you follow the US Constitution and accept the COLB you must agree that President Obama is a natural born citizen.”
Your statement is an opinion, to which you are entitled. but what makes you think it is prima facie evidence in any US court of law. And you are confusing LFBC with COLB and COLB certifications.
Why must the COLB be accepted when the US Government says there is rampant fraud in BC through out the USA.
And even the Passport office will not accept them without confirming evidence.
“This statement is flat-out not true. The Hawai’i DoH created and certified the LFBC and they are, last I checked, a government agency”
How did they create the LFBC? They created a copy of the LFBC not the original!
There is no certification on the original birth certificate.there is an attestation of the birth of the child, but nothing on the rest of the original.
“There is no evidence of fraud whatsoever—certainly nothing that would be admissible in any US courtroom”
And somehow you know of all of the evidence that could be admitted into the court!
Are you aware of any that will not be admitted.
Of course I can not find any fraudulent documents in the HAWAII DOH because they are not available to the public. I can also not find any true documents for the same reason.
“The original birth record was not in DC. I never said it was. What I did say is the original birth certificate, which is an entirely different thing, and which is a legal document that is prima facie proof of the contents of the birth record, was on display at the Obama campaign HQuu\. Again, if you were too lazy to go down there and examine it yourself, that is hardly Obama’s fault.”
You run from your words. The Certification of Live Birth was on display, not the Certificate of Bi
Nothing turned Ivan Zarovitch around. WND lied about his report. That’s all. And even WND’s carefull lies stopped short of him actually saying the PDF was a forgery. And We did hear his Opinion. He personally sent Doc his report and his opinion. Its not Zarvitch’s fault that you closed your eyes, blocked your ears and HUMMED REAL LOUD and then pretended he never said it
This is the SAME WND that said the paper copy of Obama’s BC was kosher when Obama showed it at the same press conference that Savanah Guthrie took a photo of it.
Whats that Hmming noise. Oh yeah its you with your eyes shut rocking back and forth again.
So, the former head of the IMF comes from Chicago too? Or you think he is tied into Obama because of Eggs and Fish. Maybe Vitter dressing in nappies and getting whipped proves Obama is corrupt too.
Actually John woodman proved that there was no sign of deliberate forgery in the PDF, and everything on it can be explained by simple computer PDF compression. Which is what the Debunkers have been telling you for years.
He look there’s that hmming noise again
And Arduini ACTUALLY said that only an idiot would try and prove a paper document was forged my looking at a compressed PDF copy of it. You would look at a high res photo of the original at least. Like the high res AP copy.
Hey watch that hmming there Scott you will break your vocal cords. And if you keep rocking back and forth like that you will fall over.
No-one is disparaging John Woodman. He just proved that there was no sign of deliberate manipulation on the PDF, and all the anomalies can be explained by computer Raster Compression.
So your red flag turns out to be as worthless as everything else you repeat endlessly to keep people paying attention to you. And Nothing you type will ever stop Barack Obama being President.
Sad thing is, I don’t lie at all and people pay a lot more attention to me. Even in basic attention grabbing, you’re whole quest is a failure.
Yep, stick to your stupid make believe world Scott. That’s why no-one loves you.
Wow, you mean he had the same type of BC as Donald Trump released? You don”t say.
Lets see Donalds BC history
First he released a Hospital Birth cert that his parents got. Legam value zero
Then he released a CERTIFICATION OF BIRTH!!
And then he released a Certificate of BIRTH REGISTRATION!!!
Obviously the guy was dodging the Birth certificate question by bever releasing an actual Birth certificate. Whats he hiding? And his mother was a Brit!
Is David Farrar another con artist like Zullo? Even though his posts come across as totally idiotic, he doesn’t seem to be an imbecile, nor blinded by racist hatred like some of ther others. So what’s his angle? Is he peddling a book?
He’s been doing this crap for years. I remember crossing swords with him on the TPM boards. He’s a bigot with a love for every single lie about which he will stick to no matter what and will happily lie and lie and lie. For example, he was hammering on and on and on about Obama’s low poll numbers circa 2010, and when even Rasmussen as forced to report on the poll numbers rising above 50%, his sullen response was “only 50%?” He used to lie about his own life as well, making out that he was a successful buisnessman and talking about his travels in his yacht, which abruptly stopped when someone asked him where his yacht was as he had a boat in the same port and Farrar was claiming his boat was. he also claimed to be a soldier deploying to Iraq and used this to talk about his advanced patriotism compared to the Liberals, and he the claimed he had been sent home as he was wounded.after a week. He also claimed to be a constitutional scholar and that you cant understand the constitution unless you had studied all the federal papers, like him.
Whether his angle is just being a troll or he honestly believes his shit is anyone’s guess, but he is a bare faced liar that just hates Democrats in general and President Obama in particular.
And then he sued Bill Maher who claimed Trump’s father was an orangutan, then PULLED OUT before he had to submit any actual birth documentation (not “internet images”) to the court. What does Trump have to hide?
If Trump ever runs for Prez, will birthers give him a free pass? (Of course they will.)
What the Spock is that supposed to mean?
“No certification on the certificate” is a contradictio in adiecto – the certificate *is* the certification.
Oh, birthers are so cute! So worried about ONE person’s birth certificate, while never inquiring about other presidents. Aren’t they adorable? Gosh, why did they select this particular president for their sincere (lol) investigation?
By that standard, no president has ever proven his eligibility (remember those presidents whose only claim to birthplace is “testimony of mother/brother” don’t even meet a lower standard of proof, let alone your absurdly high one) and therefore all previous presidencies are null and void, along with (as you birthers claim) all laws and treaties signed by them.
Now who but somebody who wants to give “aid and comfort to the enemy” would claim such a thing?
He’s been doing this stuff for years. I remember crossing swords with him on the TPM boards. He’s a bigot with a love for every single lie about which he will stick to no matter what and will happily lie and lie and lie. For example, he was hammering on and on and on about Obama’s low poll numbers circa 2010, and when even Rasmussen as forced to report on the poll numbers rising above 50%, his sullen response was “only 50%?” He used to lie about his own life as well, making out that he was a successful buisnessman and talking about his travels in his yacht, which abruptly stopped when someone asked him where his yacht was as he had a boat in the same port and Farrar was claiming his boat was. he also claimed to be a soldier deploying to Iraq and used this to talk about his advanced patriotism compared to the Liberals, and he the claimed he had been sent home as he was wounded.after a week. He also claimed to be a constitutional scholar and that you cant understand the constitution unless you had studied all the federal papers, like him.
Whether his angle is just enjoying being a troll and poking and annoying liberals, or he honestly believes this stuff is anyone’s guess, but he seems just to be a bare faced liar that just hates Democrats in general and President Obama in particular. The most you can say about him is that he is relatively harmless keyboard warrior, except maybe to the number of members of the Republican party as being associated with idiots like him would cause rational people to flee.
Though, sets be fair, he is to be thanked for helping to confirm the eligibility of President Obama to be on the Georgia ballot, after he hired (yes actually hired) Orly Taitz Esq. to represent him in his Georgia state challenge.
David get $30/week from Floyd Brown to post idiotic drivel on diverse websites. I know it’s not much, but he gives comparable value.
I have it from a reliable source, whose identity I can’t reveal, that the current David Farrar is the former Bree Anne Donahue, late of Belfast. She infiltrated and informed on several IRA cells in the late eighties. In one case, her information resulted in the liquidation of a cell, but her survival of the ambush raised suspicions so she went to ground before the IRA could do a review of her associations and subsequent mishaps.
The Thatcher government persuaded Bush I go accept her into a deep cover witness protection program. Since the IRA had many sympathizers in the US, it was decided that a gender change should also be done to throw IRA informants off the scent.
This was accomplished with David Farrar receiving an identity with a FAKE BIRTH CERTIFICATION.
Ask him to produce records of the hospital stay of his mother for his delivery! HE CAN’T DO IT! He is (in the words of Orly) a complete fraud.
Tee hee hee hee
That was true at one time; it may not be true now. In the past, Birth Certificates were generated by photocopying that page and the title was preprinted in preparation for that. That is no longer the procedure and the current form (if one exists) does not need an ‘official looking’ page to be used as the source of a copying process.
Never-the-less, a document is not a certificate unless it bears a valid certification, no matter what is printed on the document. In the United States, a Birth Certificate must have certain information about the birth event, an attestation that the information is a correct copy of the information on file, and the State Seal. The attestation and the seal make up the certification. If it doesn’t have ALL THREE of those items, it is not a Birth Certificate.
A certificate is a document that carries a certification. A certification is an attestation by an authorized official about the truthfulness of the information on a document and the mark of the authority that official holds, which in this case is the State Seal.
I doubt that Hawai’ian birth event record paper forms contain the words “Birth Certificate” today because birth certificates are produced from a database. If they do it is only a holdover from the previous system that produced Birth Certificates by photocopy (or whatever)
In any case, when the State goes paperless (if it hasn’t already), there will be no paper form at all, with or without the word Birth Certificate.
Huh? Where did you get that from my comment?
Yes, of course the form is filled out at the hospital; the signatures are gathered by the hospital and submitted by the hospital on behalf of the parents. Yes of course, the only information ‘added’ by the vital statistics registry is the date-stamp and the registration number.
That document is not a Birth Certificate however despite what it says on the top. It is not a Birth Certificate until it is certified, and that document can never be certified because the vital statistics department does not have any first hand knowledge of the facts contained on the document. Those with first hand knowledge of the facts contained on the document are those people who have signed the document – the doctors, the parents – it is essentially an affidavit swearing to the correctness of those facts. The vital statistics department is charged with the storage of that record for perpetuity.
A Birth Certificate contains INFORMATION COPIED from that hospital generated document, and the certification is the States guarantee that they have copied that information faithfully.
This isn’t really rocket science, and I’m sure you can understand this:
1) The Hospital and the Parents swear that the information supplied to the State on the record of birth is correct.
2) The State certifies that the information on the Certificate has been copied correctly.
The certification is the States guarantee that the information on the Birth Certificate is identical to the information that was supplied by the Hospital and Parents on the record of birth.
The sworn record of birth is not the Birth Certificate, the DoH certified copy is the Birth Certificate.
And where are you going to find information to verify or contradict the information. Do you currently have any specific information that throws doubt on any specific data item on that page?
You do have the State of Hawai’i’s guarantee that the information on that document is identical to the information supplied by the Hospital and the Parents in 1961.
The Constitution of the United States demands that you give full faith and credit to that guarantee unless you have actual evidence that some data item is false.
Do you have any such actual evidence?
Why not?
Exactly what is wrong with it that makes you think the doctor should have baulked at?
What is wrong with its appearance?
The wording is a bit odd perhaps, but it is not undecipherable.
She is not saying that she was given the certificate numbers before the birth.
She is saying that when her twins were registered, those are the numbers.
Every birther on the planet accepts the Sunahara twins BC’s as legitimate, and use them to demonstrate that Obama’s BC is not legitimate. Until, that is, they realize that the Sunahara’s demonstrate that Obama’s BC is legitimate.
hint: oxymoron
Where did you get the idea that each hospital had their own numbering stamp?
Helen,
Since you cannot possibly prove the circumstances of your own birth to the standard to which you wish to hold President Obama, nor, I suspect could you even reach the standard that President Obama has already surpassed, you are clearly a foreigner and should leave this country post-haste or be quiet and accept that, even if you don’t like him, he is your president.
As for admissibility of evidence, it’s not my opinion, it’s an awareness of birther claims (that one judge said had “little to no probative value”), the US Constitution, and the federal rules of evidence.
Where did you get that idea? It simply isn’t true. There are problems with some birth certificates issued in certain counties in Texas and by some jurisdictions in California. There has never been a question about the State of Hawai’i or any other State (to my knowledge). Puerto Rico also had a bad system and is in the process of re-issuing birth certificates to those who need them.
The Passport office requires evidence of citizenship AND an identification. A Birth Certificate that shows that the birth happened in the United States is an example of a document that shows evidence of citizenship, but it is not an identity document. A driver’s license is one example of an acceptable identity document.
Helen said: “The Certification of Live Birth was on display…”
And what is wrong with that? The Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii—used by thousands of people to get their US passports every year.
I have done an extensive ‘net search, and I can confirm that this is true. “David Farrar” is in fact, a woman.
ex anum
mishamarinsky
Farrar is vying to be the next Inspector Clouseau.
Not one independent, corroborative piece of evidence has any body been able to put forward to independently verify Obama’s birth certificate. All you have been able to do is lay down silly smokescreens as excuses.
OB/GNY appointments and records of same, hospital registration documents*, invoices for the delivery, copy of checks paid on the birth invoice. Who was the witness to this birth? Who was in the delivery room besides Dr. Sinclair, if, indeed, he was even the delivery physician, which I can’t find any actual proof he was actually the delivery physician. It is extremely rare to have a state certified birth document that doesn’t provide a wealth of other sources that can provide overwhelming proof that the birth occurred, and those that don’t, the normal procedure in these cases is to simply produce the hospital birth certificate, or natal records.
ex animo
davidfarrar
*Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children has stated they have all of the records that cover the date of Obama’s birth.
The state of Hawaii said it’s legit. Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says that’s good enough! You lose, Farrar!
ex assblow
The Punchmaster General
Dude, that was over 50 years ago. Most of the people involved are dead. What an idiotic set of “requirements”. The hospital where I was born is now a parking lot. I suppose I am just out of luck if I need to prove where I was born? I don’t even have the newspaper announcements that we have for Obama. Do you have those David Farrard?
You know we get it. You will never accept Obama was born in Hawaii. IMO you are deranged and incapable of looking at facts objectively. You had your day in court. You picked a clown for an attorney, You lost to an empty chair.
Your pretend absence of corroborative evidence does not constitute absence of evidence. This why you are doomed to failure and you get no respect here–you are fundamentally dishonest with yourself.
Hint: look at the exhibits YOU presented in your own lawsuit, Farrar v. Obama.
David Farrar,
The best thing you can do is write your Congressperson with your “concern” over Obama’s eligibility and then stop worrying about it.
As long as you make up facts (as below), you can never expect to arrive at correct conclusions.
How about you prove you were born to us, or are you a rare individual like Obama that doesn’t have this corroborating information. Now you cannot use ANY record you have personally because you could easily fake them. You must get a record from a physicians office, hospital or an affidavit from someone present. And of COURSE a birth certificate is worthless.
The Mona Lisa, it’s composition, I imagine is quite different when viewed in person as opposed to seeing it on the net or in a magazine. The elements and beauty of the Mona Lisa are a secret until viewed in person.
For those who have not viewed the PDF next to the photocopy it is interesting how the PDF anomalies disappear. Now…..Again, I find it interesting. Others may also find it interesting.
So do birthers here have a problem with President Johnson’s birth certificate which simply listed the name Johnson on it? His full name was then amended decades later based on one of his friends acting as a witness.
Dear Mr. Farrar, all Mr. Obama needs for any official documentation is a copy of his short form Certification of Live Birth made available to the public in 2008. That’s all the law requires for any action requiring the presentation of a birth certificate. This endless and unrelenting demand you have for an ever-unsatisfactory parade of unrequired information can only be explained by your racist motivations. There can be no other explanation for your persistent insistence to be given some measure of “evidence” that is completely unnecessary.
it’s smaller than I thought, and it’s in layers.
Aside from bigoted motivations, there is a complete lack of respect for the law as clearly demonstrated time and again by so many birthers.
Queens’… apparently they are all called queens now… lol
I am amused by the whole birther requirement that the facts on Obama’s birth certificate have to be “independently corroborated.” Leaving aside the fact that this is a standard they have held no other Presidential candidate to at any time, it is farcical on its face.
The whole idea of having a standard government-regulated birth certificate is to prevent this very situation from happening, where a person would be required to track down doctors that delivered him. I am more than fifteen years younger than the President and the doctor who delivered me retired years ago. I’m not sure he would recall my birth even if he still is well. He delivered a lot of babies.
Sure maybe aliens hatched Mitt Romney in a spaceship and then forged records in Michigan. But I cannot refute Mitt’s birth certificate merely because I have questions about his birth. I need some hard evidence, like say that spaceship’s lab where they grew Mr. Romney. Absent that, I may be unsatisfied with Mitt’s explanations on how he isn’t an extra-terrestrial plot against humanity, but his birth certificate stands. Just because I think something may be funny with Michigan’s records doesn’t mean that I get to demand further evidence to my satisfaction (which totally would be at some point satisfied that Mitt Romney wasn’t an alien plant).
Of course, birthers don’t get that. They want to claim that the state of Hawaii is lying (and repeatedly so) about the President’s birth in 1961. Even without getting into the other players that would certainly have to be in on the conspiracy were that true, that is a heck of an allegation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc. Of course the birthers have that backwards.
D. Farrar-“Not one independent, corroborative piece of evidence has any body been able to put forward to independently verify Obama’s birth certificate. All you have been able to do is lay down silly smokescreens as excuses.”
No excuse needed. No independent, corroborative evidence is required.
The State of Hawaii was asked to provide proof of birth; They supplied the C.O.L.B.
It has been validated many times by the State of Hawaii.
“Full Faith and Credit” requires that it must be accepted by all other courts and States, per the U.S Constitution.
Your efforts have been six years of nothing. Entertaining, certainly. But this ended at the first C.O.L.B.
and woodman…. even your answer about it is flakey dr. K.
Helen could be referring to the Inspector General’s Report regarding fraudulent birth certificates being used as breeder documents.
http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/26150665
Also, there are states that may require a valid birth certificate to obtain a drivers license. Illinois and Arizona come to mind.
Please provide your source for that claim.
Yes, I should have said uncertified copy of a birth certificate.
That is actually very true. IMHO.
Thanks for the info regarding this strange person (“David Farrar”). There is a somewhat famous political activist/blogger with the same name and I was surprised someone with his credentials could write the drivel penned by the “David Farrar” who posts here.
Arizona requires proof of legal presence in the United States. I used an expired US passport to get my Arizona driver license.
I have reviewed the site in detail and can’t find where you posted which Hawaiian hospital you were working at in 1961. It is a pretty simple question that you should be able to answer in less than 30 seconds and might help people here accept the validity of your statements.
could have been worse, he could have been called alias smith or jones.
in blazing saddles everyone was named Johnson, even the pharmacist and the ice cream guy.
so maybe there’s a clue.
Reed Hayes was supplied a vehicle by the cold case posse, it was purchased from Ringling Bros Circus. His matching clown makeup was supplied by Lt. now Captain now General Zullo. Just some clarification.
I always wonder why people post stuff without taking the 5 seconds to check it on Google- like I just did
Illinois requires as follow- something to prove each group:
Group A (show proof of legal name/written signature):
•Driver Education Certification
•Current Illinois Drivers License
•Social Security Card
Group B (show proof of full name and date of birth)
•Adoption records
•Birth Certificate
•Current Illinois Drivers License
•Passport (with date of birth)
Group C (show proof of Social Security number and full name):
• Illinois Drivers License record
•Social Security card
Group D (showing proof of residency)
•Affidavit-Certificate of Residency
•Bank Statement (within ninety days)
•Canceled check (within ninety days)
That would have been quite an accomplishment, considering that he was 53 years old when the war in Iraq began. It’s not impossible – at least 11 soldiers age 50 or more have died in Iraq – but highly unlikely unless Farrar was a career soldier.
Fascinating, isn’t it? It might lead one to conclude they are more concerned about the quantity of their posts than their quality. Hmm.
I used to live in Glendale, Arizona. The only document I was required to show to get an Arizona driver’s license was my New York driver’s license.
The solution is simple. The Constitution must be amended to require the videotaping of all live births, using at least three datestamps AND a copy of that day’s paper (or the previous day in the case of birth prior to 7am) and be witnessed by at least one representative of each political party, together with images captured of each parent, holding a copy of their birth certificate, and the video to be stored so that it can be copied and added to any nomination for President, at which point it must be displayed daily on all television stations and the .gov websites until Inauguration Day. In the event of any dispute as to the authenticity of the birth, a signed affidavit of the mother’s OBGYN, and photographs of the mother’s genitalia, may be introduced as evidence.
Should be a slamdunk to get this ratified, especially in southern state legislatures where the GOP majority is fixated on reproductive organs.
They’re not interested in credible evidence.
It’s an asinine ruse and a game for many of these bigots.
Remember, the goal of a jackass is to be a jackass.
That would be a first.
The reason I had to rely on something other than a valid out-of-state driver license was that I had a license from New Mexico, which was one of the few states not requiring proof of legal presence before issuing a license.
Yes, I had to show my birth certificate when I obtained my Arizona Driver’s License. The purpose was to show that I was of age (15 years 8 months for a learners permit; 16 years for a drivers license at the time, if I recall correctly – long time ago now).
A Birth Certificate is NOT an identity document. It is evidence of the facts of birth location and date.
Huh? If you’ve overpaid your taxes during the year, and the IRS gives back your overpayment by May 30 (or within 45 days after you file your return if you’ve submitted an extension of time for filing), then the IRS doesn’t pay you interest.
It looks like the IRS interest rate is a mere 3%. Yes, that’s higher than what banks pay, but certainly below what I’ve made in the stock market this year.
Really? Are you that stupid? Really?
Do a survey of all the States, and find out what they call their “birth certificates”.
You’re arguing that a “red ball” is not the same as a “ball that is red”
isn’t it time for you to claim I’m a misogynist again?
Says the guy who can’t answer a question. You not understanding simple concepts isn’t considered being flaky. I’ll chalk up flaky to another word you don’t understand the meaning of right up there with analogy.
So you have no problem with President Johnson’s birth certificate
Now that you mention it, I may have had to product a utility bill to show that I had an Arizona address.
I continue to get amazed at your wheeling and dealing, just like a burgler caught in the house and have all sorts of explanations for his position in the house.
Simple facts are beyond your compehension.
The birth certificate completed and filed with the state is hown in the birth index, with the number.
A certified copy is made of this document and that copy is a COPY OF A BIRTH CERTIFICATE and not a birth certificate ,per se!
And now you state and aver that the numbered, accepted, filed document is not a birth certificate.
Very Strange.
If you go in to the records and , being entitled to view such documents, search for a person’s birth certificate , you would claim it is not there in the file as it is not a birth certificate.
What is BIRTH CERTIFICATE?
the certificate that is filed with the right authorities when a child is born that records the date and place of birth and the parent’s names etc.
Law Dictionary: What is BIRTH CERTIFICATE? definition of BIRTH CERTIFICATE (Black’s Law Dictionary) http://thelawdictionary.org/birth-certificate/#ixzz2aTyj1uYs
Now that is Black’s Law Dictionary for what it is worth
I assume you are claiming that it is really just a birth RECORD and not a certificate.
Kind of reminds me of Certification and Certificate
And, if this person is correct, the parents do not swear to , or attest to, anything, they simply certify to the facts.
The deliverer attests to the birth.
Here is a 1962 birth certificate which has no certification on it.
http://drleonardcoldwell.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/13.jpg
Is it a birth certificate or not?
And how on earth would you be able to determine the truth of my answer?
Or do you not believe in privacy of employment?
If she got numbers for her children before they were born the numbers must have been put on in the hospital otherwise the numbers would be out of sequence,
Dr Kenneth Noisewater: So you have no problem with President Johnson’s birth certificate
For those wondering what a valid birth certificate should contain, the State Department requires that those used for passport applications contain your name, birthplace, birthdate, full parents’ names, a seal from the issuing office, a filing date within one year of your birth and the signature of an “official custodian of birth records.”
With all that in mind, here’s a look at the nine presidents before Obama:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/28/search-for-u-s-presidents-birth-certificates-yields-mixed-results/
@misha
You asked what I thought was wrong with the BC that I would not submit it.
I always asked for perfection in documents, and when a checked box is scribbled in or out, it has to be done over.
Because you don’t know what the actual intent of the checking is!
Yes, Edith Coats’ BC is a birth certificate. It is a certified copy of a birth certificate. It has all the elements necessary to be a certified copy, including the raised seal and the registrar stamp.
What you apparently don’t know is it has a registrar stamp on the back. I would show you a link to it but I know how much you dislike being referenced to another copy of something.
—–
Why do you say it has no certification? There is a raised seal in the top right of the document.
—-
What answer? You gave none.
Edith Coats BC has a certification on it. It is on the back. I would provide you link but I know how much you dislike being referenced to a copy of something.
What’s on the back? Could it be the seal and stamp that’s faintly visible on the right hand side of the image you linked to?
Could this be it: http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_rear.jpg
It’s on the website with the image you posted: http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_front.jpg
Did you do any research of your own before decided to run with this piece of nonsense?
It took me less than a minute to search for “edith coats birth certificate”, find the information on passportsusa.com and then compose this message.
You fail to notiice I made no claims as to the validity of the passport, just that there was no certication.
In fact, Hawaii would issue lfbc without certification to the people involved if they didn’t need the certification.
And the date stamp and signature are on the back side: http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_rear.jpg
All this prompts a couple of simple questions: Why didn’t helen notice the raised seal and why didn’t she do a little research to get more information?
Hmmm….let me think about that for a minute?
Helen,
The best thing for you to do is contact your Congressperson with your concerns.
A poster at Free Republic received a non-certified lfbc. But it is on plain xerox paper without a seal or a stamp.
So what?
I suggest you try to perfect your writing.
Helen,
Doc C did an article on a possible workflow for the Hawai’i DoH over 2 years ago (you can find it here: http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2011/02/possible-work-flow-for-hawaiian-vital-records-in-1961/ ). Unlike birther theories, this plausibly explains all of the known BC numbers from August of 1961. Doc’s conclusion is that if the birth certificates were collected into alphabetized (by last name) batches for each hospital every month and then numbered, you would get what we see: The lowest number for the last name starting with “A”, a big gap between that number and the Nordyke’s BCs, a small gap between Nordyke and Obama, and a bigger gap between Obama and Stig W. Virginia Sunhara, being born at a different hospital has a number higher than any of the known Kapiolani births. Since the obots (thanks to Doc C) have a plausible explanation of all of the numbers including President Obama’s while the birthers can’t come up with an explanation which makes the other numbers plausible and President Obama’s number anomalous, the only rational conclusion is that the BC numbers support the theory that President Obama’s BC is legit (which is also supported by every other piece of evidence in existence, by the way). Not that I believe that you will accept a rational conclusion over your own bias and desire to find a standard that President Obama can’t meet even if it means that no US citizen can possibly prove the circumstances of their birth. Why is that?
Superb clear and pithy analysis!
Of course you are free not to provide details of your employment. But if you expect people to believe your claims about the processes used when dealing with Hawaiian birth records and you are not going to provide any sort of documentation to back up those claims, you need to provide some sort of reason for people to take your word.
Because it’s inconvenient.
Large numbers of Americans (perhaps even a majority) have long been willing, even eager, to sacrifice the rights of other people if it suits their purpose. And don’t feel the least bit hypocritical about screaming “Tyranny!” at the tiniest infringement of their own.
It would be most interesting to see a list of the pundits and politiians having fits about the NSA’s metadata trawling who are on record telling other people “If you don’t have anything to hide, what are you worried about?”.
Apparently not, since that’s pretty much what the certified copy is. Except that it also comes with a sworn statement about its authenticity, and a safety-paper background to improve the odds of detecting tampering.
At first glance, it would seem you have answered your own question. A document without a certification is not a certificate. Period.
However, there are two problems with that rather pat answer.
First it depends on what you are asking. Is the jpeg computer file, displayed on my monitor a Birth Certificate? Of course not.
Second, Is the physical document pictured by that jpeg file a Birth Certificate? Maybe.
I can see the seal, but not the attestation.
So, assuming the attestation is on the back of the pictured document, which is most likely, then yes it does carry a certification, and it is therefore a certificate. And by the by, if that is the case, you have misrepresented the document.
A certified document describing a birth event is a Birth Certificate. If the attestation does indeed exist on the back of the page, the document that the JPEG image was produced from is indeed a Birth Certificate.
So the real question then is, do you have an image of the back of that same document?
I see. You just misunderstood the rather labyrinthine quality of the quote. That is an easy mistake to make as she was speaking off the cuff, not writing a structured report, and it wasn’t a prepared speech.
She didn’t relate the story in strict chronological order. She didn’t get the registration numbers until after the birth was registered with the State.
Except that it most certainly DOES contain a certification as CarlOrcas has shown.
Your disingenuousness is beginning to show, Helen.
Why thank you for all of the comments, and ,of course, I can not resist thanking you for Dr.C posting of his suppositions.
And those are good suppositions as it confirms what I am saying.
All throught the posting of Dr.C.the documents were referred to as BIRTH CERTIFICATES, and not once did he say anything about not being BIRTH CERTIFICATES, and he said they were so filed.
Note a word about certifiying,or that they were not birth certificates.
Thank you .Dr.C.
Although, I can also suppose that Dr.C.was,and is, wrong about the situation.
The only thing that would prove,or disprove the numbering suggested by dr.C.would be to find a run of 10-20 births from the hospital with sequencial numbers that are in alphabetical order.
I Trust you can do that to confirm the belief.
You know what? I am going to admit to being wrong, and writing a lot of words about it.
Specifically, what I am wrong about is that the hospital generated record of birth is not ‘a certificate’ because it does not carry a certification. Hawai’i’s reports DO IN FACT carry TWO certifications, one by the parent and one by the attendant. So by my definition, I must own up to the fact that this document is indeed a Birth Certificate.
What it does not carry is the State Guarantee that the facts on it are correct; the State has no first hand knowledge of those facts. The only thing the State can do is maintain that document in its original condition and protect it from damage or loss. Further, it can copy the information and guarantee that the COPY contains the same INFORMATION as the original record of birth, since it DOES have first hand knowledge of the storage and copy process.
According to HRS 338-13:
So, once the State guarantees that the information on the copy is true, that copy has exactly the same evidential value as the original record of birth on file.
To my embarrassment, the Doc tried to clue me in on this fact years ago when I persisted in my error. He has infinitely (will almost) more experience in the field than I, I should have listened a bit more closely. I was ‘encouraged’ to have another look at the document, when I noticed it took me 4 readings to pick up an error in one of Doc’s posts where he doubled a word.
A state issued Birth Certificate is a guaranteed accurate copy of the hospital generated certificate, nothing more, nothing less. The copy is NOT a certificate until it carries the State’s defined certification. A piece of paper without a such a certification is not a certificate, whether is has the word ‘CERTIFICATE’ written on it or not. The certification is the State’s symbol of their guarantee that they have faithfully protected and copied the information.
Oh, the irony.
And another stunning example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
*smh*
Why would such things be recorded anywhere? Does any hospital today record such things? Also you’d have a hard time finding any of these witnesses alive. Especially for President John McCain. Isn’t it suspicious everyone who witnessed his birth is dead? Please investigate!
The existing data fit into the non-birther theory (“numbered alphabetically by month”) and not the birther theory (“numbered chronologically”).
So I would assume birthers have the burden of proof they are correct. That’s what’s called science.
Besides, why do I get the feeling that if anyone “proved” that “10-20” BC’s with sequential numbers are in alphabetical order, you’d claim that could be coincidence and you need to see *all* BC’s from *all* months to rule that out?
As I mentioned above here is a link to President Johnson’s http://www.fold3.com/image/29327271/
Scott seems to have no problem with Johnson’s BC
Notice this has the same registrar Verna Lee as is on Obama’s
Helen wants a run of 10 to 20 birth certificates from 1961 which will prove nothing, other than give Birthers more folks to harass.
Come on Helen. Time to put up. What evidence do you have that Pres. Obama was born somewhere else. The time for your questions is done. Time for you to actually do some work.
I’ve noticed time and again that birther bigots never actually want to put in the work to back up their accusations with credible evidence. Puzzling.
Of course. Birthers have no regard for anyone but themselves. They’d violate the privacy of dozens of inviduals based on their misguided belief in a conspiracy theory. This is despite the fact that President Obama has gone above and beyond what previous presidents have offered. Anyway you want to see some birth certificates that are old Helen? Okay here’s a crash course. What do you think about the legality of the following certificates?
http://www.fold3.com/image/?spot=2294
President Lyndon B. Johnson – Notice his birth certificate lists no first or middle name and simply has the name Johnson on it. It was then later amended with a personal friend serving as witness.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedailymirror/2010/08/nixon-birthplace-revisited.html
Richard Nixon’s on this page is a copy of NIxon’s BC. Notice it wasn’t filed until he was 29?
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/images/stories/documents/reaganbc.jpg
Ronald Reagan, again his BC wasn’t filed until decades after he was born. This one is for Scotty Reagan was born in Illinois obviously he must have been a product of the corrupt Chicago Machine!
What are you going to do to confirm your “belief”?
Operative word is “may.”
Operative word, “may.”
Seriously no.
I am not being pendantic- read the State requirements- a birth certificate is one option that a person may use for Group B- but the State will never require it- the applicant may choose to use a birth certificate, but a passport would work just fine.
I cannot remember the last time I have used my birth certificate for anything- my passport works for everything that a passport would normally be asked for.
And we know Obama has a passport….
You folks are much more patient with Helen than I am.
She is a care troll.
Quantity of posts? Probably less than 10 posts. Again, the operative word was “may” and yes the state of Illinois was reviewed and a birth certificate is mentioned as acceptable for obtaining an Illinois DL (Group B). Arizona has required a birth certificate and a drivers license for a DL if one has moved from certain states, New Mexico being one of those states.
We were both speaking in general about many people who have posted here. You are just one of the latest.
Why,thank you , Keith.
But you do realize that the state guarantees nothing at all.
The State can not be sued if the information on the BC is wrong or faked.
They certify that it is a copy or abstract, depending on the certification notice, and nothing more.
Correction, they certifiy that the signature is valid and of the responsible party
May you live a happy life..
Oh,and by the way, there are about 5 groups that create bcs.
Hospitals,birthing centers,doctors,families,and attendents,midwifes.
the states refered to are sufficient to satisfy my statement
“In spite of the fact that 25 State registrars say that birth certificate fraud has been committed by vital records employees in their State, only 14 States conduct background checks on vital records office employees.”
half of the states had fraud committed by employees in the office, that should telll you something.
Also the fed conducted three investigations which tells you something
Goodafternoon
Yes, it tells me you’re a ridiculous concern troll who likes to spread irrational fear and a birther who had already drawn conclusions for whatever bigoted motivations.
Good day.
If you believe the BC was faked when exactly do you claim this happened?
Was Hawaii one of those states mentioned Yes or no? Over the course of how many years did this investigation cover? How many specific instances did this happen? How many actually involved the state registrar? Again this is a traderjack line that because it’s happened in a few instances it must happen all the time. It’s ludicrous
you,of couse,are entitled to your opinion but if you don’t believe the OIGofDHS report of 2000,behappy.
http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-99-00570.pdf
As to whether or not Hawaii was involved you will note that 25 state registrars had employees that committed fraud,
That, to me,indicates that fraud by other than employees must have been a problem.
If you think the residents of Hawaii are more honest than the residents of California so be it.
All fraud happens all of the time, sometimes it is caught, but when the Fed Government investigates the problem it must be more serious than others believe.
And that the registrars say it happened in their offices it is there.
The supposition that crime does not happen very often is interesting!
When you ask a question that can not be answered by someone not involved in the deed it makes me curious as to why you think I was so involved.
Again, that’s just really stupid.
I’m asking what you believed happened since you’re the one speculating about official state records.
I’ve read the report back when another troll like you with similar claims named TraderJack came here posting it. We’ve heard this nonsense before. I notice you didn’t answer my question. If you read the report then you could tell me if Hawaii was one of those 25 states. Interviewing 25 registrars doesn’t mean 25 registrars were involved in fraud. So now answer my questions without changing the subject. Wow so some employees who have since been fired may have done something illegal at some time. Which means what exactly?
Again what was the time period and how many instances were involved? If you read the report you’d be able to answer these simple questions.
How many cases of birth certificate fraud have been committed in the last ten years?
Did you even bother to read the report which you cited?
Most Birth Certificate Fraud is Committed Using Genuine Documents. An alarming fact is that most of the fraudulent documents identified by Immigration and Naturalization Services staff are genuine documents held by imposters, the most difficult frauds to detect. For example, staff in the El Paso Intelligence Center4 indicate that 90 percent of the false claims cases they see involve bonafide birth certificates held by imposters. Passport Services staff report parallel statistics, stating that 85 percent of the birth certificate fraud they encounter also is the result of genuine birth certificates held by imposters. Further, vital records registrars responding to our survey indicate they have encountered persons impersonating others to obtain genuine copies of those persons’ birth certificates, individuals who had purchased birth certificates from the persons’ named on the birth certificate, and persons who had stolen or acquired stolen birth certificates.
Read that again. Most birth certificate fraud is committed by people using someone else’s real birth certificate. That is not fraud committed at the state level.
The report also cites problems with delayed and amended birth certificates, and with births which were attended by midwives. None of those categories apply to Obama.
In fact, if you read the entire report you will see that Hawaii is one of the states which is least vulnerable to birth certificate fraud. Hawaii has only one entity which issues birth certificates. New York has 1,505; Texas has 866. Hawaii also does not have open access to vital records, which many states do have.
So what evidence is there that birth certificate fraud is a problem in Hawaii? Nada. Zilch. Not a shred.
Hawaii doesn’t have a border problem either.
An interesting birther phenomenon. Kinda like the Coats birth certificate with the seal clearly visible on it that she posted.
Hlelen,
It is a question that must be answered in fulfilling the burden of proof of an accuser (you must come up with a “theory of the crime”, so to speak, not to mention evidence to support it). In other words, by implicitly admitting that you can’t answer the question, you are saying that you have no cause to suspect that President Obama was not born in Hawai’i.
No, you asked me exactly when it happened,didn’t you?
If are asking me my opinion of what could have happened, you would have gotten a different answer.
@kenneth noisewater
“I’ve read the report back when another troll like you with similar claims named TraderJack came here posting it. We’ve heard this nonsense before. I notice you didn’t answer my question. If you read the report then you could tell me if Hawaii was one of those 25 states. Interviewing 25 registrars doesn’t mean 25 registrars were involved in fraud. So now answer my questions without changing the subject. Wow so some employees who have since been fired may have done something illegal at some time. Which means what exactly?”
If you don’t want to believe the OIG report and you think it is nonsense then why would any one believe that you would believe anything that was not from a level higher than an InspectorGeneral of the USA
If you are unable to understand that 25 state registrars stated that their employees committed birth certificate fraud in their offices ,you must not understand what a problem that is
There is no way to tell in any particular state was one of the 25, so Hawaii may have been of them,or not have been. The report does not say.
If you want to believe Hawaii was not one of them, fine. I don’t know if the state registrar said he was not one of them.Did he?
The State guarantees that the certified copy is a true copy of the hospital generated birth record. That is all they can guarantee.
The State cannot guarantee the information on the original birth record, only those who were there can do that. The parents and the birth attendants certify (Hawai’i’s words) or swear (my words), as to the accuracy of the information on the birth report.
However from the instant that birth record was turned over to the State for safe keeping, the State has first hand knowledge of the document itself. The State’s certification is the State’s guarantee that the document has been in its control the whole time and that the information has been accurately copied from the original birth record to the certified copy.
Again, this is not rocket science, Helen. The parents and attendants ‘certify’ the information on the original document. The State ‘certifies’ that it has stored and copied the information correctly.
I keep beating this rather dead horse, that its about the information, because that is the part that is relevant. Anything to do with the wording of the title at the top of the page (Certificate or Certification?) or the way it was produced (photocopied from the original birth record or printed from a computer database?) or how it is made available for the public to view (individual mail-out to 300+ million or PDF file over the internet?) or any thing else not related to the information on the document is irrelevant.
The birth event information was sworn to by the parents and attendants; that record was stored by the State DoH; the State DoH guarantees that they have accurately copied the information. End of story.
By-the-way, I understand that not all birth records are generated by a hospital. The word ‘hospital’, as used here, is short hand for all the various groups that might be responsible for generating that original birth report.
I feel like butting in, because to this outsider’s eye, you come across as totally deranged.
Here in France we’ve had a few cases of electoral fraud over the years involving fake birth certificates (mostly in Corsica) but as someone else pointed out, every single case is based on using authentic information (usually that of deceased persons) to create fake adult IDs.
No one has ever “made up” a person that didn’t exist before. Even our spies (and I suspect the same is true of the CIA in your country) use real info to create fake cover identities.
The notion that someone “made up” the Barack Obama ID 50+ years ago in order to inflitrate the BHO we all know today into the US is more than unreal, it is almost literally insane.
I’m not even sure what you’re trying to argue, because you read like a demented person.
Hawaii has onlyone place that issues birth certificates,true,but they have many that submit birth certificates,
It is not the problem of issuing the blank birth certificates, it is the problem in the submission of the birth certificates, not the issuance.
Smile a while, it is almost over and gone!
Yeah, it’s the same old troll.
Dr Kenneth Noisewater: If you believe the BC was faked when exactly do you claim this happened?
That was what I originally said and what you responded to. I did ask you your opinion of what you believed happened. Reading is fundamental.
Again you didnt read your own report since you cant answer simple questions about it. Over how many years did this report cover trolljack? It states which states were apart of the 25 Hawaii wasnt one of them. How many instances does this report cover? Youre the one touting it trolljack I assumed you read it
Helen,
Just a quick question here…
You seem to be suggesting that we cannot accept birth certificates as a whole as proof of the place of birth. So, my question to you is what do we replace them with? How does someone prove citizenship within the United States?
Please include in your answer your complete option, including something that everybody in the United States can use to prove their citizenship, from the age of 1 to the age of 121.
Many? Did you just make that up on the sport? The entire state has fewer than twenty hospitals.
Wrong again. As the IG reports states, the majority of birth certificate fraud has nothing to do with either the submission or issuance of birth certificates. It has to do with people using real birth certificates which belong to other people.
Furthermore, the report goes on to list the factors which contribute to birth certificate fraud, and there is no evidence that any of those factors are relevant to the way that Hawaii processes and stores birth certificates.
While is true that the report states that “25 State registrars say that birth certificate fraud has been committed by vital records employees in their State,” the report is totally lacking in details. Nowhere does the report suggest that the fraud involved inserting fake birth certificates into the archives of those states. The most likely scenario is that those cases involved vital records employees giving copies of birth certificates to people who weren’t entitled to them, and perhaps giving blank birth certificate forms to people who wanted to create phony birth certificates. Neither scenario applies to Obama’s birth certificate.
If you want to convince us that the State of Hawaii could possibly have a fraudulent birth certificate in its vault, you first have to show us evidence that the state has ever certified a fraudulent document. Just one example would suffice to support your case. Can you do that? I didn’t think so.
It is impossible for a public citizen to investigate birth certificates, because the law prohibits the disclosure of the pertinent information to the public.
You accept that the original documents may be wrong,fraudulent, or in error. You admit that the document can be filled out by family, attendents, and other various people. You admit that birth certificates can be created out of other bcs to provide false papers at the request of government agencies. You admit alll of that , yet refuse to admit possibility of fraud.
You think that bc’s are only submitted by hospitals.
And then you ask people to submit copies of fraudulent bcs from Hawaii where even the HDOH can not tell if they are fake.
Let me ask you this.Why are you so strongly against admitting that fraud exists in HDOH files?
Helen: “Let me ask you this.Why are you so strongly against admitting that fraud exists in HDOH files?”
Because you have no PROOF of fraud, only an imagination of it. You do have ways of proving the BC is not accurate…but it’s easier to call someone a liar without proof than to do the heavy lifting required to prove your theories.
And that last sentence is a good example of “have you stopped beating your wife”
No one can answer that question for one basic reason.
There are people in the USA that are not citizens!
Why don’t you stop trying to pose questions that are impossible to answer correctly.
I try to answer questions,but these kind of questions are idiotic.
Why thank you , Jim. Perhaps you can advise me as to how anyone can prove a birth certificate,not their, is fake, when you can not see the original document on file.
I wait your response with eagerness.
Helen,
Why are you so strongly against admitting that the Constitution says that official acts of the State of Hawai’i must be presumed to be true? Especially since one of the logical consequences of your argument would be that you cannot prove the circumstances of your own birth…
@KB
“Again you didnt read your own report since you cant answer simple questions about it. Over how many years did this report cover trolljack? It states which states were apart of the 25 Hawaii wasnt one of them. How many instances does this report cover? Youre the one touting it trolljack I assumed you read it”
I,not trolljack, have filed no report about anything. I referred to the OIG report,which you seem to think is fact, but was not part of anything I created.
But, having read it, I can find nothing in it that refers to the state names of the state registrars who admitted that their employees committed fraud.
How did you determine that Hawaii was not one of them.
As to the rest of your questions the years must have been throughout the terms of years specified in the instructions to the OIG, which I have not one iota of infomation about their instructions.
You are the one that thinks it is crap, so I guess anything I post will not convince you!
May the sun shine in your life
Happily I will do so. They may be presumed to be true, but that does not make them true,does it.
Did you know that if Britain asks for a copy of a Hawaiian birth certificate for the purpose of verifying the birth of an american they wish to employ, Hawaii will issue it with the statement that they guarantee neither the contents,nor the legality of the document, but will guarantee that the signature of the registrar , or other party, is valid
I don’t really think the constitution says that at all, it does say the full faith and credit applies their actions, but ,as I have claimed, the original birthcertifiate is not a product of a governmental agency, and , although the certified copy is a product of the state, the document is not.
Otherwise no birth certificate could ever be considered fake.
True, but birth certificate can be submitted by other than hospitals. Read the law and you will find out that the mother can submit a bc.
Many ways to submit
Helen,
It makes them true for all practical purposes until proven otherwise. What you and the other birthers have been trying to do for 5 years now is to make statements, accusations, and smears against the President without ever coming close to carrying your burden of proof. You shame yourself by continually denigrating fundamental American concepts like “innocent until proven guilty”.
Prove he wasn’t born in Hawaii.
Helen,
President Obama’s birth certificate (like everyone else’s) must be considered accurate unless and until it is proven fake. That’s what the law says, not to mention that the system couldn’t work otherwise. Just because you and the other birthers can’t even find a shred of real evidence that any sort of fraud was committed doesn’t make your baseless accusations and “concerns” anything more than vile and dishonest attempts to smear a person that you are prejudiced against.
You’re merely referencing language possibly found on an Apostile. An Apostile’s purporse is to certify the seal and signature, not the contents. You get the same Apostile when you want to use a notarized document internationally (the Apostile will merely certify that the person was a notary, with their seal, not the contents of the document notarized). An Apostile from any State in the US will certify the same darn thing.
This isn’t shocking news to anyone who has the slightest knoweldge of how document legalization works.
“Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.”
You’ll note the “records” portion of that….and the birth certificate is a government record, no matter how hard you want to deny it. It is record under state regulation, processed by the state, and maintained by the state.
But don’t bother actually checking the language of the Constitution get in the way of what you think is in it.
And you go about lying again trolljack. There is nothing in Hawaii law saying family members who are not parents can fill out birth certificates. There is nothing on Obama’s certificate to suggest the claims you are making
Elenhay isway aderjacktray andway away olltray.
You haven’t answered a single question you’ve been asked thus far and instead avoid them like a typical troll. You’re the one claiming birth certificates can’t be relied on so why can’t you answer the question on what you believe they should be replaced with?
No I’m calling you trolljack your sock puppets are getting pretty obvious at this point. You didn’t read the OIG report fully did you since you can’t answer simply questions about it.
No I’m saying your intepretation of the report is crap as usual trolljack
However, that is not the case in the President’s birth certificate. His was submitted by a hospital. Just because you can think of a possible way that someone could create a fraudulent birth certificate is not evidence of fraud in a particular instance. Unless you can give specific reasons why this birth certificate in particular should not be relied on, you’re wasting everyone’s time. Your “no one should ever rely on any birth certificate issued by any state, EVER” is really a rather pointless.
I know that. You are the one who used the word “many.” The reality is that Hawaii has relatively few sources of birth information when compared to the other 49 states (there are more hospitals in New York City – Manhattan – than in the entire State of Hawaii). And we know that Obama’s birth certificate was not submitted by his mother or a midwife. It was submitted by Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital to the Hawaii Health Department.
Helen: “Otherwise no birth certificate could ever be considered fake.”
Absolutely false, that is, your statement here, Helen. Providing a birth certificate false would merely entail meeting a great burden of proof to show it was fake — not a bunch of ginned-up lies by birthers who posted two demonstrably false “Kenyan” BCs; ignored Sarah Obama’s final reply in the notorious McRae interview, the one in which she said he was born in Honolulu, Hawaii; ied about a supposed travel ban to Pakistan in 1981 to prove that the 20-year-old university student traveled there on a foreign passport; and lied about the president’s first executive order, asserting that it sealed his own personal records.
Given this track record, where is the credibility to inspire a court to take you seriously? I can’t stress enough that, just because you simply imagine something might be so, you don’t have the right to force a couirt to check out your fantasy..
Because there is no evidence of fraud existing in HDOH files.
This is the United States. We don’t convict people without evidence. We likewise should be not be impugning the integrity of the Hawaii Department of Health without evidence that is has done anything which is improper.
You, like most birthers, do not require evidence. To you the mere theoretical possibility of birth certificate fraud is sufficient for you to cast doubt on the authenticity of every birth certificate issued by Hawaii. That is a 21st Century version of McCarthyism, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
You didn’t answer the question…
You are saying that no birth certificate can be relied upon to provide the facts of birth. My question to you is a simple one…
What do you replace it with? How does every citizen in this country prove their citizenship, which includes place of birth? Please remember that your scenario would be needed for everybody to use. I’m just wondering what your proposal would be to replace it.
And for it to actually qualify as superior, it has to apply to every age, the 121-year-old person, and the 1-year-old.
If you think it’s a “when did you stop beating your wife” question, that means you have absolutely no better solution to whatever imagined problems you think there are to our current system of proving citizenship.
—-
There it is, in a nutshell. Thank you.
What is birtherism? It is a shameful 21st Century version of McCarthyism, a..k.a., Bircherism.
You even hate tourists.
Chapter 8a Delayed Birth Registration
Section 2
b (4)
Any older person having personal knowledge of the facts of the birth
read it and weep, KD,
http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/8%208A%20B%20VR%20Admin%20Rules.pdf
Geez, how can I hate tourists when I don’t even hate you?
A birth certificate can be relied upon when the information is confirmed by other facts.
OIG says that. It does not confirm identity. just birth
Since we know President Obama’s registration wasn’t delayed, how is this relevant?
Helen,
The whole point of a birth certificate is that it is sufficient to confirm the facts of birth (in the absence of evidence* to the contrary). Have you already forgotten what prima facie means?
* That means real evidence that is admissible in court rather than baseless smears and “questions” from concern trolls like yourself.
I know what prima facie is and it applies to certified copies, show me something where it applies to the original as prima facie, full faith and trust , applies to governmental documents.
Why would the State of Hawaii deny the accuracy of the document when issuing an apositile to a foreign nation?
It is a strange belief to believe that birth certificate fraud is not prevelent when the OIG of HDS says it is.
It is possible that a $100 bill is a fake, but in 90 years I have not seen one in person.
Does that mean that I should not look at the $100, or that the merchants should accept them with out check for fakes.
My daughter worked for SBA , the SSS,in California and one of the things she had to do
was check birth certificates for proper content.
Why would she have to do that if it is presumed to be true?
@Dr. Conspiracy
“I, probably along with most people, thought that a certification in forensics by a recognized national organization is an assurance of expertise. I thought that all such organizations have stringent training requirements, do rigorous testing, have continuing education requirements, and discipline members for misconduct. I was wrong. ”
But , do you extend that belief to the certifiers of birth certificates, who, as far as we are, oh ,hell, I will say, as far as I know, have no training as certifiers?
I suppose any certiifedr examiner should be better than the clerks examing the document in a state agency.But it appears as that might be wrong.
So no one is qualifed to examine documents?
Now how do you know that? You believe it implicitly because someone told you it was not late , or not delayed?
Because it is either a copy or abstract it can be claimed to be either, allowing the copier to nor put the normal defintion on the copy.
Has anyone verifed that it is not a late , or delayed, bc who is in the HDOH
We know it wasn’t a delayed registration as it would be marked as such so again trolljack you’re wrong
Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it’s plausible. You have shown no proof that Obama’s BC was forged.
I presume you mean HHS, but have you actually read the report? Let me point you to this finding:
“between 85 and 90 percent of the birth certificate fraud encountered by the Immigration and Naturalization Services and Passport Services staff is the result of genuine birth certificates held by imposters.”
So right there we rule out 85-90% of fraud as pertinent to this discussion right off the bat! Looking at that small remainder, we find:
“State and local vital records staff say birth certificates issued based on delayed and amended birth registrations are more likely to be fraudulent. They also say they consider births registered by midwives, and other home births, to have a high potential for fraud.”
The high-potential fraud cases in the residual 10-15% is with a kind of certificate not representative of President Obama’s.
The report mentions counterfeit certificates several times, but makes no statement indicating how common it is.
Yes, of course they did.
On several occasions, the State of Hawaii has verified that all of the information on the White House released birth certificate matches their files. That information includes both the date of birth and the date of registration. By definition a form registered by the state 4 days after birth is not “late” or “delayed.”
I really expect folks here to try to think for themselves sometimes.
Do you mean Section B 2 b (4)?
And even more to the point is the fact that the report does not cite a single example of a counterfeit birth certificate making its way into any state’s vital records.
Trying to insert a counterfeit birth certificate into a state’s vital records makes about as much sense as printing a stack of $100 bills and then trying to deposit them into your checking account.
No one is certified to be always right. Some people have more expertise than others, and there is a presumption that they are right. But a conclusion and a challenge to that conclusion must be, in order to deserve confidence, arrived at in a repeatable testable way, in accordance with the known science of the field, and with some assessment of the reliability of the techniques used.
The problem with forensic evidence in court is that few defendants have the financial resources to mount a challenge to government forensic experts, and judges tend to allow “expert testimony” based on years of experience (not necessarily years of doing it right) and certifications from diploma mills. And in some jurisdictions, experts and crime labs have no certification at all.
Of course birther experts have no certification or experience. They never did any forensic document work in their lives before Obama. I exclude Hayes from the discussion because we don’t know whether he is an expert or not insofar as the methodology in his report and will not know until the report is published.
How is Hawaii’s law different than West Virginia’s?
http://www.wvdhhr.org/bph/hsc/vital/forms/delayedbirth.pdf
I have no indication that Helen is posting here under any other name.
Only that’s what happened in the New Jersey case. Somebody slipped the assistant county registrar a few thou to insert fake paperwork, and then walked away with an “official” birth certificate. But it’s rare. And inserting a paper record into a county system is altogether different from inserting one into a state-level computer system. (I know having designed some of them.)
This is a web site for grownups who have a minimum ability to think, process information, and draw simple conclusions–and it is also for birthers.
If you want to be in the first category, you really need to do better. Anyone discussing Obama’s birth certificate should be at the very minimum, familiar with the information on it, and what the State of Hawaii represents about it. They should be able to read the statute and compare the conditions to the facts on the President’s certificate to see if they are germane. They should not wait for the grownups to explain everything to them.
So if you don’t want to receive the reply “you’re just a stupid birther and not worth listening to” to everything you say (or worse), you really need to take some responsibility for what you say.
And please, get a browser with a spell checker. Sheesh.
Different IP same string of illogic and M/O
I like Pennsylvania’s delayed registration law:
1.4. Delayed registrations.
(a) If there is no record of birth on file with the Division of Vital Records and the birth occurred in this Commonwealth, a delayed registration of birth may be placed on file by the parents of a child up to 7 years of age without documentary evidence.
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/028/chapter1/s1.4.html
Helen,
In my experience, when I give a shopkeeper a large bill, they test it by some method—generally marking on it with a special pen—and then, assuming it passed, they accept it. Is it still possibly a forgery? Yes, it is—but it has earned the presumption of legitimacy. Or, put another way, it’s prima facie validity has been accepted—the denomination of the bill and that it is legal tender for all debts public and private. Could the shopkeeper refuse to accept the bill and tell the judge that they weren’t 100% sure that it wasn’t counterfeit? I don’t think so. Yes, more tests could be done (and might, if, for instance, the bill was suspected to be evidence in a criminal investigation), but I highly doubt you have even heard of this happening, let alone seen it.
Now, generally, when I’ve show my birth certificate (say, to get a driver’s license or some such), the clerk takes the document, looks at the seal and signature stamp and, assuming they appear correct, accepts its prima facie validity. I suppose, in extraordinary circumstances, someone might contact the issuing agency to verify that the information shown is correct, but I would think that this doesn’t happen very often.
President Obama, in response to rumors that his middle name was “Muhammad”, released his birth certificate in a very reasonable way for a political campaign: they let a third party inspect it, photograph it, and post images* of it on the web. This should have sufficed for most people, but a bunch of people popped up with claims that they could prove the document was a forgery by analyzing the images. All of these claims were completely debunked, which hasn’t stopped dishonest people from continuing to repeat them or come up with new, equally fallacious analyses. As a result of this, we know that just about every aspect of the document** is consistent with it being a valid record. In addition, we have multiple statements by Hawai’i governors and Department of Health officials of both parties that the information matches what they have on file (that would be a computer file, by the way, not a document, which comprises the official record), including testimony under oath to the Hawai’i legislature. This extraordinary evidence not being enough for the birthers, the completely unprecedented step of requesting a certified copy of the original document from the DoH (a request unlikely to be granted for you or me) was taken and the director of the agency provided two copies of the LFBC which were stamped and sealed and printed on security paper along with a letter in which she personally attested to their validity. This occasioned a new batch of exceptionally stupid people claiming that they could tell that the documents were forgeries (even though they couldn’t make out the elements of any crime or give any reason why the White House had to forge documents when the Hawai’i DoH was claiming that they provided documents and verifying their authenticity). All of these claims, as before, were completely debunked (not to mention idiotic on their face). Finally, after 4 years, the appropriate extraordinary step to verify the facts of President Obama’s birth was taken by Arizona’s SoS (and others)—asking the issuing authority (the Hawai’i DoH) to confirm the information. Which they promptly did.
At this point it is clear that any judge in a US court who refused to accept the validity of a certified copy of the COLB or the LFBC would be in violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution (or the federal rules of evidence). Furthermore, it is completely obvious that President Obama has gone far above, not just what should have been reasonably expected of him, not just what would have been a show of good faith, but he has gone over and above an extraordinary effort to establish the validity of his birth in Hawai’i.
So we come to your request, which boils down to asking the President of the United States, who has probably more solidly established the facts of his birth than any other person in our country’s history, to “Show me your papers, boy!” (I don’t know if you are aware of this, but that phrase is one frequently uttered to African-Americans in our country’s past***—and is exactly the phrase inferred from your behavior).
Now, do you understand why some people may think that your “questions” might be just a little bit biased or bigoted or racist or disingenuous or seditious or ignorant or unreasonable or unintelligent or dishonest or idiotic or… ?
* I’m not sure if they published scans or just photos
** i.e. the certificate number, the father’s race, the attending physician, the registrar, etc.
*** While you and your ilk may long for those days, the rest of us understand that things are much better in the twenty-first century, even though the birthers provide us with ample evidence of how far we have yet to go.
Agreed, which is why I was talking about inserting a fake birth certificate in a state’s vital records. A state such as Hawaii, which has only one repository for vital records, clearly is much less susceptible to fraud than states which issue birth certificates at the county level and town level.
Zullo’s claims about Hawaii birth certificate laws are becoming more outlandish. Here is a rough transcription.
Zullo: How could he get a birth certificate if he wasn’t born in the state of Hawaii? And that is a valid question. When you start looking into Hawaii state law, Hawaii statutes, it’s very easy to get a birth certificate.
Interviewer: Well, that’s right because in Hawaii it’s a little different than the mainland.
Zullo: Very different, very different. Hawaii gives the unique ability for anybody to go in and provide evidence verbally that they know of a birth and they are compelled to release a birth certificate. Take that information and make a certificate. I don’t know where this happens anywhere else. Not only that, you can go in and self report, as an adult that you were born there, you can have somebody go in other than your mother or father, and claim residence for two people that aren’t even present, that claim that they worked or lived in Hawaii, have some kind of document maybe a tax stub or a fabricated tax stub and get a birth certificate for people that the state of Hawaii never even interviewed and for a child that they’ve never even seen. It is unbelievable what that state is able to do with birth documents. And you know the Inspector General in 2000 issued a report talking about birth certificate fraud. Hawaii is the poster child.”
Interviewer: “It’s the number one.”
Zullo: Number one. Everything that he complained about goes in Hawaii.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Px9XtjUAIzs
It is almost as if he knows that he is never going to have to present this in any formal legal setting, and can say whatever he wants.
Helen is back.
Helen, would you like to tell us where Pres. Obama was born?
Sorry, “I don’t know” is an unacceptable answer at this point in time. Pres. Obama has been elected twice. Time to have as view as to where he was born.
Make sure you back up your answer with facts which meet the same scrutiny that you are giving to the Hawaii certification. Remember, you are accusing two governors of Hawaii of crimes. Don’t tell us you are just asking questions. It is time for answers.
You asked me the other day where I though he was born. And I answered you. Now it’s your turn.
Where was Pres. Obamas born, Helen?
Stop ducking the issue.
“We’re off the far end here in terms of legal evidence in a legal proceeding, not a press conference, not a political rally, in a legal proceeding.”
— Judge Jeff Masin on the Corzullaio Cold Case Posse’s findings.
Helen, you claim that birth certificates can be believed when they are supported by other facts? What sort of other documents, or facts?
But, KD, I thought you said that not anyone could submit the BC. So, and if you had looked at the rules you would have seen the same thing for original bcs.
And, I do believe,which you won’t, that the OIG said that sometimes the delayed was not entered on some delayed bcs. But, hey, you think his work was a bunch of crap, don’t you?
I can guess that you really, really, really, don’t want to be shown that you are in error in your postings.
Why is that?
Any honest person would be delighted to be shown that is knowledge was not as perfect as that person thought it was.
Helen,
If that is true, why are you not delighted to admit that you are trying to hold President Obama to an impossible standard—one which neither you nor anyone else could meet—when he has already done far more than any of his predecessors to establish the facts of his birth? Isn’t your failure to do so more than just a little hypocritical?
Helen,
Since it is clear that the report of President Obama’s birth was not delayed, why is the regulation you quoted relevant? More to the point, how do we know that your birth certificate was not the result of a fraudulently filed delayed report? Given your lack of understanding of US law and the Constitution as well as your constant unAmerican behavior, it would seem foolish to take your word for it without proof…
Excellent question, how about the picture of the baby in the mother’s arms, and arriving at home with husband with the sample bC from the hospital.
If you look at the INS requirements for verification of identity it might help you see what they did,or do!
Ok,tell me, whose word would you take about anything that contradicted your beliefs.
Why, it might indeed have been a delayed birth certifcate for a birth in Texas, I would not know as I was not alert when the bc was signed.
Were you?
Now I will telll you a little secret, words can not hurt me as I am an adult !
You want to bandy around attacks, feel free, but I try not to tell other people that they are this or that, as I do not know!
You might have noticed my lack of claiming you are something or other and possibly thought it was a sign of weakness.
No,my dear old mother and father told me not to disparage other people that you do not know.
I don’t even criticize Obama on this thread
Helen,
How would that in any way be more reliable than what we already have? Especially given the assurances of the issuing agency. In any case, birthers have already had far more bites at this apple than they ever deserved and have failed to compile any admissible evidence of wrongdoing at all—let alone enough to persuade a judge that President Obama’s BC is forged. Isn’t it time to admit that you were wrong about this and move on? Why do you hate President Obama so much?
When did Obama ever do anything to provide the birth certificate. He had an attorney fly to Hawaii, pick up a certified copy, bring it back, where it was handed to the attorney’s office to duplicate it for distribution, thereby invalidating the certification as the certification is only good on the original. then a newsperson was allowed to look at it, claim it was the good thing, and have her picture taken holding it and saying it was valid.
The newsperson was just like everyone , they did not have the knowledge to know whether it was good or bad, but they just believed the President as he would never lie, would he?
@helen:
Your posts here still come across as completely deranged, like the folks who think your government faked the Moon landing.
But obviously, you don’t care, do you?
You’re either trolling to have fun at the other guys’ expense — or you are truly deranged. It’s impossible to tell.
I don’t hate Obama, I don’t hate blacks, mexicans, jews, obot, birthers , swedes, russians, chinese, or anyother group of people,although I am getting close to hating Muslims as they kill each other and non-muslims.
People are entitled to take as many bites of the apple as is necessary for them to find out if the apple is good or bad.
What am I wrong about.? Your opinion is that, my opinion is this, and which opinion is not valid for the person holding it.
Helen,
I’m a scientist. I don’t have beliefs, I have hypotheses, none of which are scientifically valid unless they are falsifiable. In other words, there is potential evidence which could prove any statement I make wrong and I know what it is before I make the statement. What behavior or documentation on the part of President Obama would have convinced you that he was born in Hawai’i? Have other presidential candidates already met this standard? Even if you could answer the first question (and we both know that there is nothing that you would have accepted), you couldn’t find a single presidential candidate who has done anywhere near as much as President Obama has done to verify the location of their birth. In other words, you have a double standard (since I assume that you have never demanded this level of proof from anyone else) which makes you a hypocrite. I believe that when someone acts ridiculous they should be ridiculed and that making clear inferences from a person’s writing is a reasonable thing to do.
As for who’s word should be taken regarding President Obama’s birth, the Constitution gives that authority to the agency designated by the state of Hawai’i: the Hawai’i Department of Health. You can doubt them all you want, but unless you have evidence of fraud on their part, you must accept that they are the final arbiters of who was and who wasn’t born in Hawai’i and they have clearly and repeatedly said that President Obama was born in Hawai’i.
The mind boggles trying to imagine what nightmare the issuance of passports and border crossings must be like on what I’ve dubbed “Helen’s Planet”.
It must be like that wonderful Jack Vance short story THE MOON MOTH where everyone goes masked and has several identities depending on their masks/moods. Great to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there.
Helen,
You are clearly biased against President Obama as you are trying to hold him to a standard that no one could possibly meet. That is prejudice which makes you a bigot. I am also wondering if you hate Christians since they kill each other as well as non-Christians or if you are a hypocrite in this regard as well.
Your idea that people can make baseless accusations as long as they like flys in the face of the concept of “innocent until proven guilty” as well as being a dishonest attempt to shirk the burden of proof that any legitimate accusation must bear. To me, this is just about the rudest behavior imaginable—a shameful affront to both the Constitution and the rule of law as well as the common sense of all of the posters here. I consider this kind of behavior which you have exhibited very wrong indeed.
,
OK I will say it again , and again, and again, Obama is the President, and a good father, and was elected twice.
But, the problem is ,in my mind, not the President, may he be in grace with Allah, but with that piece of paper that is claimed to be a valid birth certificate.
If nothing else would make me suspect that piece of Paper it would be the First Letter of the signature, rubber stamped, that has a defect in the down stroke, and is not in anyother signature that I have seen of that Registrar.
One thing raised suspicion in me, and many others!
so be it, right or wrong!
What baseless accusation? There is always a base for an accusation, be if valid or invalid.
Ok,you tell me how many Christians today are cutting the heads off of Muslims. How many are burning schools with young kids in them!
As to being a bigot”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
Read it and see where you fit!
The Hawai’i DoH authenticated the certified copies and the Obama administration released them in the only practical way: they allowed reporters to examine them and posted images on the web. Verifications have been sent to Secretaries of State who asked for them and certified copies have been filed with courts. Your delusion that it hasn’t been vetted because it hasn’t been examined by some biased individual with no relavent expertise of your choosing is your problem. President Obama has far exceeded any and all reasonable expectations.
As for presidents lying, you shouldn’t be taking his word for this, you should be taking the Hawai’i DoH’s word and if you think that accusing someone of lying without any evidence is sufficient to impeach whatever they say, then we have no choice but to consider everything you’ve written to be completely dishonest.
As a scientist you must have miswritten that sentence. Did you mean verifiable instead of falsifiable?
What kind of scientist thinks that way. I guess your scientic hypothesis about Obama’sBC
is falsifiable?
Educate this mere mortal mind!
Wasn’t Dr. Tiller (as well as several other people who performed a certain legal medical service) killed by a Christian in the name of his god? Aren’t people who try to impose biblical law on their fellow Americans as wrong as those who try to impose sharia law? How about the “Christian Taliban” that wants nothing more that to get science out of our schools and government and bedrooms and their version of religion in? I’ll gladly fight for the Constitution against religious extremists of any stripe, while you seem willing to give a free pass to any who worship the same god as you (except for muslims).
As for baseless accusations, why does your accusation of impropriety in President Obama’s records have any more validity than me accusing you of murder? (hint: it doesn’t) On the other hand, my accusing you of bigotry due to your demonstrated bias against President Obama is warranted given the evidence (you wish to hold him to a standard that not a single one of his predecessors could have met when he has already done far more than any other has ever been asked).
Accusations can either be made up (like your “questions” regarding President Obama’s birth) or have a basis in fact (like my accusations based on what you’ve written here)—they are not all created equal and those of yourself and other birthers have been found wanting time and again. Did your mother teach you that such rude and dishonest behavior was acceptable?
Falsifiability is the most important criterion of scientific hypothesis—a hypothesis can never be verified (i.e. proven), but it must be able to be disproven or it isn’t science. If an experiment is consistent with a hypothesis then it becomes more likely that the hypothesis is correct (in other words, it has predictive power), but if an experiment contradicts a hypothesis then that hypothesis is demonstrably false. When the outcomes of many repeatable experiments are successfully predicted by a hypothesis which has not been falsified (like the hundreds of thousands of academic papers on evolution), then the hypothesis becomes a theory which is almost certainly correct. From a scientific standpoint, President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i is probably a theory and definitely has not been falsified.
In my opinion, falsifying the hypothesis that President Obama was born in Hawai’i would require a foreign birth certificate which officials of the issuing agency (preferably some of the highest officials) had verified as accurate in addition to the state of Hawai’i refusing to verify the facts of his birth (or, alternately, compelling evidence of fraud on the part of the Hawai’i DoH in the specific case of President Obama).
So what would prove to you that President Obama was legit?
For some of us foreigners, the “good christians” of the Bush-Cheyney regime are responsible for the hundreds of thousands of death in Iraq, not mentioning other atrocities engineered by the US of A elsewhere on the planet, including in your own backyard (since you bring up schools).
Considering that there only 1443 years since the birth of Muhammad, and the notorious Spanish Inquisition was established only in 1481, I think that overall the Muslim faith has shown great progress and restraint compared to the Christian faith.
So I wouldn’t brag too much.
Clinic violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence
Everyone arrested cites Christianity as their inspiration.
The Inquisition was a dress rehearsal for the Holocaust.
Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic, and was inspired by Christian Identity.
Adolf Schicklgruber – Roman Catholic
Adolf Eichmann – Lutheran
Benito Mussolini – Roman Catholic
Also, I suggest you read “The Missionary Position,” by Christopher Hitchens.
Not if it’s not your apple. That’s the problem with birthers–they demand things that aren’t theirs, and claim for themselves standing as representatives of the public that is not theirs.
Given all the evidence at hand that would appear to be an impossible task.
How much time and effort have you put into examining the birth records of prior Presidents?
The “newsperson” looked at, handled and photographed the certified birth certificate.
Are you now saying it was “bad”….forged?
Shorter Helen,
A Birth Certificate could be forged, so Obama’s Birth Certificate is forged unless proven otherwise with extraordinary evidence.
Therefore;
Helen can rob a bank. Therefore, it is assumed Helen robbed a bank unless she can provide extraordinary proof she did not rob a bank. We get to decide if the proof is enough.
BTW Helen… When will you answer John Reilly’s question? Where was Obama born?
But, helen, couldn’t that all be faked……like everything else in your world?
“Helen”
You suffer from a classic RWNJ fallacy and serve as an example and indictment of the home schooling movement in the USA.
A birth certificate is NOT relied upon if supported by other “facts”.
Other “facts” can be relied upon if supported by the birth certificate.
One item, the birth certificate, is a legally and constitutionally binding document, other “facts” aren’t.
Do try and keep up, there’s a good little racist.
Did you have any particular INS requirements in mind?
You’re just a stupid birther and there is no reason to listen to you.
Helen:
Where was Pres. Obama born? Enough of the drivel. Give us a location and some facts.
Why do you keep ducking the question?
How is that any more reliable? Could you actually tell that it was Obama, where he was there? Would you be able to tell how old Obama was? And how would that prove where Obama was born?
Furthermore, what about for all the orphans out there? The people born to those who die in childbirth, who don’t have those.
Two things.
1. We’re not talking about the verification of identity. The birth certificate does not do that. Passports and drivers licenses are verification of identity, not birth certificates.
2. Why the INS requirements? First off, the Immigration and Naturalization Service does not exist any more. It ceased to exist on March 1, 2003, with the functions being transferred to the following agencies: US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP). But that’s beside the point. Even these agencies deal with something that most American Citizens do not have: people who were not born citizens (they are charged with that). Wouldn’t a better scenario be what the State Department requies for proving of citizenship for granting of a passport, since they are the agency that actually deals with the proving of citizenship inside the United States?
You know what they require, don’t you?
Under their application for a U.S. Passport, it directly says: “Proof of U.S. Citizenship: Submit a previous U.S. passport or certified birth certificate. Passports that are limited in validity will need to be supplemented by other evidence. A birth certificate must include your full name, date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records (state, country, or city/town office), and the full names of your parent(s).”
That’s it. That is their primary qualification for proving U.S. Citizenship. If you submit a certified birth certificate, then you don’t need to submit anything else to prove your Citizenship (unless the birth certificate was filed more than 1 year after you were born).
You can read the requirements here on the application to apply for a U.S. Passport: http://eforms.state.gov/forms//docs/ds0011.pdf
So, why look to the USCIS, when the State Department is the one that deals with these all the time?
Now, tell me the following looking at the birth certificate from 2008 here: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/birth_certificate_2.jpg (note it’s rotated 90 degrees)
(Note: this is one of 9 photographs put out by Factcheck. You can see the other 8 by replacing the 2 with the numbers 1-9. The back of the document containing the seal and certification can be seen in photographs 7, 8, and 9).
Which requirement under that does Obama’s birth certificate fail under? And if there’s no requirements that it fails under, why should it not be accepted as proof of the citizenship of Obama?
Heck, I will agree with you, because, no one can look at it. Not even me, or you!
I have constantly said the problem lies with the BC, in that such a sloppy bc would warrant invertigation.
I am still asking how a date stamp can over-stamp on of the numbers, but not all of them.
Unless you think that the subject date stamp is damaged.
Well , I am glad that you posted that as your verification, but , you really shouldn’t have as that, is a blatant fraud.
You want proof, just look at the damn certificate numbers. The LFBC does not have that 1961 in it, so the short form certification must not be correct.
You do not expect that a agency would use two different numbers, do you. Oh, wait, it make it seem suspicious , but only if you did not see the original number
A smile is on my face this morning.
It does not over-stamp on the “5”. A hand stamp can be over inked, and because paper is made up of fibers, there can be smearing of the numbers or improper ink transfer from the stamp to the paper. The “2” in “25” has a smeared tail.
BTW, the top of the “5” is clearly squared not rounded like a “6”.
Because I don’t know, you do know what the word “know”means, don’t you?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowCached
Similara (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of
There is information that he was born in one of two hospitals, that he was the son of Obama, that his mother was Ann Dunham, and that some one filed a birth certificate with that infomation on it.
But, the certified copy of the birth certificate appears to have some problems resulting from the production of the BC which makes the BC suspicious to some people,of whom I am one of.
The President is the President,he is black,he is married , and may have changed his life style from his younger years.
But, he can remain in the Presidency no matter what you or I think
Well, not no one. There are those in the Hawaii DoH who are authorized to look at the original records. Much like there are those in Michigan authorized to look at Mitt Romney’s original birth certificate. The thing is those authorized to look at the records have vouched for the original certificate, which as far as I know, no one has done so for Mr. Romney.
The simple fact is that you are demanding a standard that has never been implemented for any individual, including past Presidents and Presidential candidates.
Yes,all of that is possible, but , to you it looks that way, to me it looks like an overstamp.
It looks to me like a 5 overstamped on 6.
Now I will furthe admit that the smearing of the 2 is odd, and the fact that it is paper is nonsense, it was simply a mistake by the clerk, possibly,not changing the date properly. but I really don’t know.
And why the 2011 is in narrower numbers is contrary to what is normal on date stamps
The certificate numbers for the computer generated BCs all have the date listed as 4 digits.
Watch this CNN video (I know you are not interested in watching anything that disproves your theories) at the 2:50 mark there is a shot of the computer generated BC for Stig Waidelich (DOB 8/5/1961) while the number is not clearly from this video, it clear has a 4 digit year number in the certification number.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/04/25/birthers.obama.hawaii/index.html
Watch the video in full screen.
I am not demanding a darn thing. What has been presented because someone wanted something is not my doing. I don’t give a darn about where he was born.
I only care about why the darn birth certificate is so screwed up,in my opinion.
You might not care about it , but that is your right.
I think whan a person has submitted a document to verify his statements the statements should not be written on toilet paper, but should meet a standard of commerical quality.
Except that the birth certificate in question has been verified by the state of Hawaii. Repeatedly. You may not be satisfied, but nothing in the Constitution says that you have to be. But you know that Mitt’s birth certificate that he released has “Void” on it right? And Michigan hasn’t verified that yes he was born in Detroit on March 12, 1947. But oddly you are only interested in date stamps on a BC that Hawaii says is legit, per the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution.
Here is the back of Edith Coates BC. Date stamped on Dec 28, 1984. The tail on the “2” is smeared and the “4” is over inked.
http://passportsusa.com/wp-content/gallery/passportusa/edith_rear.jpg
Helen,
It is clear that your opinion is blatantly biased, ignorant, and unscientific. In the opinion of the people who matter (the Hawai’i DoH), both of President Obama’s birth certificates are valid. You repeatedly bring up whatever artifacts your demented mind can come up with and claim that they are signs of fraud without ever thinking about why they would be evidence of fraud or how they could have arisen by innocent processes. In other words, you make an accusation and expect others to prove you wrong. This is intellectually dishonest, not to mention lazy, and shows a complete disregard for the burden of proof which falls on any accuser. Did you ever read The Boy Who Cried “Wolf”? The constant false alarms of the birthers over the last four years has made it impossible for any rational person to believe anything that you or your ilk says. Just like the boy in the story, you have lost all of your credibility and no sane person will (or should) give you the benefit of the doubt. So if the wolf ever should come for you, just remember that it is entirely your fault when you have to deal with it all by yourself.
Here is another stamp from Hawaii COLB
http://s56.photobucket.com/user/Danae_photos/media/SCN_0001.jpg.html
The “R” in “MAR” is almost gone. Look at the registrar stamp – the right edge is over inked just like the President’s is over inked in the center.
Hektor: There are those in the Hawaii DoH who are authorized to look at the original records. Much like there are those in Michigan authorized to look at Mitt Romney’s original birth certificate. The thing is those authorized to look at the records have vouched for the original certificate, which as far as I know, no one has done so for Mr. Romney.
speaking of romney, here is the piece of crap he offered: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/us-usa-campaign-romney-birth-certificate-idUSBRE84S1GF20120529
NOTICE: there is “VOID” stamped all over it
his mother’s age is listed as “36” in march, 1947 (on the BC) – however, her DOB is November 9, 1908 which would have made her age in march, 1947 “39”
there is a “certified by _________” but no title of the person who certified it since the bottom is cut off
there is no raised seal, etc
where are the verifications?
obama’s “certificate of live birth” states “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding”
pursuant to the “full faith and credit clause” of the constitution, (Article IV, Section 1), “Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.”
where were/are the criticisms and controversies over romney’s “certificate of live birth”?
trump called obama’s “certificate of live birth” USELESS for the purposes of obtaining a driver’s license, passport, etc
Here is the front of the COLB I linked to above:
http://s56.photobucket.com/user/Danae_photos/media/SCN_0002.jpg.html
The number is 151 1969 009351
And here is the LFBC for certificate 151 1961 009351
http://s56.photobucket.com/user/Danae_photos/media/SCN_0010.jpg.html
The certificate number is 151 69 009351
You forgot about Y2K.
helen: I think whan a person has submitted a document to verify his statements the statements should not be written on toilet paper, but should meet a standard of commerical [SIC] quality.
again, this is romney’s “certificate of live birth”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/us-usa-campaign-romney-birth-certificate-idUSBRE84S1GF20120529
is it written on proper paper and does it meet YOUR standard of commerical [SIC] quality?
Oh my…….you really can’t be serious.
They’re the same numbers, helen.
The original document was prepared in 1961 when we still used two digit year designators.
The short form was prepared in the 21st century after we figured out computers worked better with four digit years.
That’s all there is to it. No different numbers. No fraud. And, for you……no smile.
And once again, it’s been demonstrated that the goal of a birther bigot jackass is to be a jackass.
Seditious scum.
Exact quote from the Hawaii Department of Health: “It’s a valid Hawaii state birth certificate”
You do realize that the 61 refers to the year of either the birth, or the year it was filed (not sure which), don’t you? It’s the same exact number, other than the 2008 certificate has a 19 in front of the 61, which makes sense considering what happened on January 1, 2000 (aka we went into a new century). Why would they continue to put in just the 61, despite them moving into a new century?
They’re not two different numbers. You have the year (’61, or 1961), followed by the certificate number in that year. Guess what, the portion that actually represents the certificate number within the year is exactly the same. Furthermore, other birth certificates from around that time have the exact same “dual numbers”. For instance, take a look at the difference between Stig Wazelbech’s birth certificate (issued in 2009, certificate number 1961-10920, as seen on the CNN video.
By contrast, the Nordkye twins have birth certificates with certificate #s 61-10637 and 61-10638. How do you explain those? I can explain it easily by noting the change of 1999-2000 requiring a 4-digit year, rather than a 2-digit. How do you explain those two things.
Helen reports that she does not care where the President was born. I cannot imagine ducking a question any lower.
Helen asks if I know where the President was born? The answer is simple. Those people charged in our society with figuring those things out have done so, long ago. Just like I don’t know the score of last nights game between the Dodgers and the Cubs, I can read about it on the net or in the newspaper.
Helen berates Hawaii for numerous “overstrikes,” smudges and other stuff. She expects perfection. Yet she can’t post a single comment without a spelling error. Had Helen been the clerk on duty in 1961 at HDOH, his middle name would be “Steve.”
What a crank.
People like Helen who cloak their dishonesty, prejudice, lack of understanding and willful ignorance with the trappings of civility should be ashamed. She and her ilk are nothing more than an incompetent virtual lynch mob.
For not knowing anything, Helen is quick to allege that various officials in Hawaii have committed fraud. The lawyers here can tell you whether or not that is libel, but I read an accusation of fraud as the accusation of a crime. And I really don’t understand why someone who professes not to know anything wants to go around accusing folks she does not know of criminal acts.
That has always been one of the most despicable characteristics of birthers. They all deserve to be the victim of false allegations one day.
Yes, I think under Dr. Taitz’s formulation I’m not guilty of treason (because I did not vote for the scary Black guy) but I am guilty of misprision of a felony for not reporting Pres. Obama’s fraud to my local constable.
—
McCarthyism in a nutshell.
Simple believe the numbers are the same on the birth certificate and on the lfbc.
If you insert a number,any number,into a birth certificate number, they are different numbers.
Are you saying that the number with 1961 in it is the same number as on the original certified copy.
If so , nothing will convince you about anything
Where did I accuse anyone of a crime?
According you your beliefs the cops should never investigate a complaint because the complaintand is committing a crime for attempting to report a possible illegal operation.
Have you looked at the other examples that all show that for the computer generated COLB they added 19 in front of the two digit year.
Do you think all of these are forgeries or that Hawaii doesn’t know what they are doing?
A change of the way on indicating a year date , does not change the original number on the document.
The LFBC of 2011 uses the 61 number, doesn’t it. so that did not change the numbers before 2000.
Try again.
Of course they knew what they were doing.Documents produced, documents produced by the State after 2000 needed 4 digits.
But that did not change the numbers already in the file, did it?
Did the LFBC have the 4 letter year
Look , folks, no matter what you say about me I will not respond in a way that violates the terms of this site by calling people names , and now I must proceed to some housekeeping
You can not goad me into calling you names.
Helen,
This post shows you to be either incredibly dishonest or incredibly stupid. The LFBC is a copy of a document made in 1961, not something produced in 2011. The numbers may be superficially different, any honest person can easily see that the changes are not indicative of fraud in any way (as has been repeated explained here for people like yourself who are unable or unwilling to do any thinking on their own.
13.Personal attacks directed against other commenters are prohibited
So,I will not attack anyone!
Helen,
I’m not calling you names to goad you into anything, I’m calling you names that you have well and truly earned and pointing out your complete lack of integrity.
You accused the State of Hawaii of committing fraud, Helen. Go file a police report.
If they went back and penciled in a one and a nine in front of every year so it showed up on any certified copy would that satisfy you?
Or, is it your opinion, that all certificates with two digit years are invalid?
What is your solution to this issue?
One spelling error and a missing space from someone who thinks that Hawaii has committed fraud.
Reporting a complaint to the cops is not a crime. Let’s see your report to the police of the crimes you allege here that Hawaii has committed. Telling us is doing your position no good. Dial 911 and report the crime.
Other LFBC from the 1960s have two digit years and the new computer generated COLBs have four digit years.
How else do you explain the Stig Waidelich’s COLB? He was born Aug. 5, 1961, but his computer generated COLB has a four digit year.
You accused the State of Hawaii of committing”fraud” by issuing a birth certification with a four digit year. Do you deny that?
The numbers on the short form ARE the numbers in the computer….the data that are used to produce the document.
Computer data fields sort sequentially and that, among a couple of other reasons, is why fields for years now contain four positions…..no matter how many were on the original paper record. You do understand that, don’t you?
Adding the century does not constitute fraud……except in your mind.
No, Helen, mixed up as usual. Falsely accusing somebody of a crime isn’t ordinarily a crime* itself, but is a civil tort. It’s all in how you phrase it. If you flatly assert that John Smith committed a robbery, leaving no equivocation, and John Smith is innocent, you’ve opened yourself up to a libel suit, or slander if your assertion is oral.
Your merry band of birthers can have a high old time accusing the President and his associates of all manner of wrongdoing, comfortable in the knowledge that he’ll never sue. But other people birthers accuse are not so libel-proof as the President, and some may eventually tire of baseless accusations and hire a lawyer.
While there is some wiggle room in commenting on public matters and public figures (see New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964), it’s not total. For instance, the 1964 Republican nominee for president, Barry Goldwater, successfully sued Fact Magazine and its owner, after the left-wing rag purported to psychoanalyze Sen. Goldwater in print.
In the Goldwater v. Ginsburg case (414 F. 2d 324 – Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 1969) the appellate court cited the NY Times case in stating: “False statements are protected only if they are honestly made.” Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it simply means that the person making the false statement believed the statement was true.
The record in the Goldwater case showed many false representations in the Fact magazine article, falsehoods that could not have been made innocently. Much of birther literature is replete with conjecture that the authors assert as fact. Somehow I doubt that will stand up in a court of law. (Other assertions are obviously made-up lies.)
I read that Gallups and Zullo are, in the worst case scenario, planning to dump their “evidence” after Jan. 20, 2017, if Mr. Obama serves out his term. If they dump a cesspool of demonstrably false scurrilous accusations, they do so at their own legal peril. I doubt that Mr. Obama would sue, even after leaving the White House, but he’d suddenly have a lot of free time on his hands to pursue litigation – time he cannot spare now.
Be warned.
*Going to the police with a baseless accusation of criminal conduct can incur criminal liability, particularly if one swears to the false accusation in an affidavit.
That is an asinine remark.
As has already been pointed out to you, the LFBC wasn’t created in 2011. It was created in 1961.
The COLB (Certification of Live Birth) was created in 2007. By that time Hawaii had long since changed its certificate numbers to four digits to avoid Y2K problems.
The file number on the 1961 LFBC is 151-61-10641.
The file number on the 2007 COLB is 151-1961-10641.
Both numbers are exactly as they should be.
Birthers such as Helen are either deliberately obtuse or very, very stupid.
Either way it’s painful to watch.
How does what I say relate to your claim? A delayed BC isn’t what Obama had and thus his BC wasn’t submitted by someone else. Once again what you’re talking about has no relation to Obama
You’re not knowledgeable trolljack. You’ve been repeating the same asinine claims for years long after you claimed you weren’t a birther. You’re here to troll and not engage in honest dialogue.
The document from the hospital isn’t a BC it’s a souvenir. It’s not a valid document. Do you have pictures of Barbara and George HW Bush holding baby Bush jr in their arms from the hospital?
Okay since you believe that the BC was forged when did this forgery occur and when do you believe it was inserted in the record? Enough of the BS answer my question.
How many official birth certificates have you personally handled in your life from how many different states?
Like I said before its trolljack or traderjack as he went by here. Same MO, same claims, same nonsense and twisting of logic.
Ask me this one question.
Susan and Gretchen Nordyke’s birth certificates have been released by birthers as authentic. Both of their birth certificate have numbers that, in the year part, have a 2-digit year, just like the President’s long-form. They were born hours after Obama was.
Stig Wadelich’s birth certificate was obtained by CNN. It shows a certificate number with the 4-digit year. He was born in the same hospital as Obama just the next day, just like Obama’s COLB.
So, my question to you is why wouldn’t Obama’s COLB have a 4-digit year, just like Stig’s birth certificate, and his long-form have a 2-digit year, just like the Nordyke twins?
dunstvangeet:
speaking of the nordykes, here’s a quote from their mother, eleanor
“I entered the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital on early Friday afternoon, August 4, 1961. I was registered and my expected twins were given Hawaii State birth certificate numbers 10637 and 10638. My labor was slow with poor contractions from a distended uterus.”
“Apparently, Stanley Ann Dunham Obama came in shortly after I arrived, because her baby was registered as number 10641. Her labor was strong, and she delivered Barack Hussein Obama early that evening. The next morning my contractions strengthened. The twins finally emerged at 2:05 and 2:12 p.m. Saturday, August 5th. By the way, I don’t want to do that again!”
Obama and the Nordyke girls also wound up in the same classes at Noelani Elementary School and later at Punahou School from the seventh grade to graduation in 1979.
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/feature/entry/for-birthers-honolulu-mom-an-inconvenient-truth
http://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegotiates/2012/05/02/new-witness-obamas-american-birth/
I have said the birth certificate looks phoney to me. I have said that that Obama is president. I have never accused anyone of crimes, and political speech is protected even when you claim Bush was a war criminal
As to libel,read your own postings and see if they might be libelous when referring to me. Remember that the truth is not necessarily the defense!
I repeat that I will abide by the rules and not attack anyone, as I do not have amnesty.
But, you keep asking questions that are useless, and I keep ignoring them.
But you do not answer questions that you do not want to answer either.
Have fun, try to find new evidence that the BC could not have been faked and I will keep trying to find flaws in it.
After all licensed certified document examiners are suspect, so why shouldn’t state employees doing the same job not be suspect.
You do see the stuff going on in Washington now don’t you. The CIA instructing people not to talk about stuff.
Looks like Hawaii , again
You are wrong: Truth is an absolute defense to a claim of libel or slander.
Obama lived in an apartment in Washington DC from 1986-2006 and that Obama had the right SSN.
What was he doing there during those 20years, and least his credit record shows that he was there.
that was 3 years after he graduated!
Hmmmm CIA apartment for 20 years.?
And then retired after 20 year service?
Beats me!
Helen, you’ve never answered my question…
We have 2 different types of birth certificates, both shown by Obama.
The first is a COLB. One was obtained by someone who was born in the same hospital 1 day after Obama was born. His birth certificate number had the same 151-1961 that Obama’s did. You can see it on the CNN report link that someone put here.
Then you have the COLB of Virginia Sunhara, which has the birth certificate # of 151-1961 for her COLB.
Then of course, you have Birther Miki Booth. She was able to get both the “long form” and the “short form”. The shortform has the number 151-1981-?????. She got a long-form from a friend that shows the certificate number 151-96-?????.
A blog poster by the name of Danae got both the short-form, and the long-form, and it showed exactly the same thing.
So, all the evidence shows this. So, are you telling us that all of these certificates are forgeries?
Now that we’ve debunked your “the birth certificate number is wrong” theory, we can move on.
Let me pose my original question to you. You mentioned the Federal Government Requirements for proving of citizenship, and I agree that it would be a reasonable standard. Now, the Federal Government, for the purposes of proving citizenship, requires the following: a birth certificate containing “your full name, date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records (state, country, or city/town office), and the full names of your parent(s).”
So, what element from that is missing from Barack Obama’s birth certificate that he released in June of 2008? I provided the link so you could review the birth certificate above.
What in the world are you talking about?
Helen,
You see us as getting away with attacks that seem to contradict Doc’s rules because you fail to understand the spirit of such rules. Mostly, they boil down to one thing: intellectual honesty. Now, I can see why you have such trouble with the concept given that you have amply demonstrated your lack of integrity, but, for those of us who are capable of rational and objective thought don’t have a problem seeing your failings and pointing them out isn’t libel since you’ve shown yourself to be a willfully ignorant, dishonest hypocrite by your comments here.
Just to prove my point: when you keep implying that the lack of the “19” in older BC numbers is in any way suspicious even though it has been repeatedly explained to you that all of the other known BCs are numbered in exactly the same way President Obama’s are and that the change was necessary in response to Y2K issues, you are being willfully ignorant (or you are really stupid).
When you ask that President Obama pass a completely unreasonable standard that no one has ever been held to in the past, even though the US Constitution says that the facts of his birth must be accepted or you suggest that people should welcome being shown that they are wrong while completely ignoring the dozens of times you yourself have been shown to be wrong (and haven’t cheerfully accepted it) on this very thread, that would be hypocrisy.
When you continually cry “WOLF!” while completely ignoring the burden of proof that comes with making allegations (and deny that you are even making those accusations which are clearly implicit in your comments), that makes you dishonest.
Because your comments demonstrate your unreasoning bias against President Obama, we see you displaying bigotry.
Since you do all of this in the name of illegally usurping the lawfully elected, duly qualified POTUS, you are also being seditious and unpatriotic.
Therefore calling you any of these names is simply the truth and not actionable. As much as you might whine about it, no one here has any sympathy for the kind of person you have shown yourself to be.
Deal with it.
Well, that’s nice. What is your expertise and experience with birth certificates used to make such a conclusion? Also, since Hawaii has verified that this IS a valid birth certificate and the records in Hawaii confirm its contents, what evidence do you have that the state of Hawaii is lying about this?
See, here’s the thing with your “I’m just asking questions” game. You seem think that all you have to do is find something that is anomalous with either the LFBC or the short form (or talk about some crazy CIA conspiracy). You may find an anomaly, but that doesn’t prove a forgery. Nor would it overcome the burden necessary to show that state of Hawaii is lying when they say Obama is born there. That’s a huge burden, one that cannot be overcome merely by complaining you don’t like the look of a date stamp.
Reed Hayes is suspect because unless used car salesman Zullo has teleportation powers (or something like that), he could not have examined the original records at the Hawaii DoH. Mr. Hayes is also suspect because we have almost no idea what is in his report, since Mr. Zullo isn’t sharing. We have absolutely no reason to take Mr. Zullo at his word about the reports contents or conclusions let alone the validity of them.
Remember, Hawaii is on record saying that the President was born there. The COLB is self-authenticating and unless Mr. Hayes could demonstrate conclusively that the Hawaiian DoH was lying in this specific instance, he can testify to his heart’s content about things in the PDF and it not make a whiff of difference.
You know what looks phony to me, Helen? That someone who looks for every speck of dust to allege that Hawaiian officials committed a crime can’t spell the word phony.
And you can look it up.
—–
What was Obama doing while living in a “DC apartment” for 20 years? He was working in Manhattan for private companies for a few years, working as a community organizer in Chicago for a few years, attending Harvard Law School and serving as President of the Harvard Law Review in the Boston area for a few years, practicing law in a Chicago law firm for a few years, and serving on the Illinois legislature for a few years. But a bill collector says he had an apartment in DC, and this you choose to believe. You obviously know as much about online databases and bill collectors as you do about state records and scanned documents….
Frankly, Helen, one of the most offensive things I’ve read by you is your assertion that you think like a woman. That just casts a false and negative light on women everywhere.
Hear, hear.
There is no evidence that his credit record shows any such thing. To my knowledge, no birther has ever seen a copy of Obama’s actual credit report. What they have seen is list of addresses which have been aggregated from numerous sources, some of which are reliable and some of which are not.
The reports which birthers have been relying on contain the following disclaimer:
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified.
I suggest that you read that disclaimer several times so you will never forget it.
I am an expert in this area. I am a private investigator who has worked with such databases on a near daily basis for more than twenty years. One of the addresses for Obama which Neil Sankey found in his databases is 123 White House, Irvine, CA 92618. I challenge you to find that address on Google Maps. You won’t be able to, because it doesn’t exist.
Another entry shows Obama living on Obama Lane in Franklin, Wisconsin. Do you believe that there is an Obama Lane anywhere in the United States?
You are a gullible birther who believes anything negative which you hear about Obama, and you stick your fingers in your ears and cry “I can’t hear you” when you are presented with proof that there is no basis in fact for your beliefs.
The other day Equifax was hit with an $18 million punitive damages judgment for failing to correct errors in a consumer’s credit record.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/your-money/credit-scores/credit-bureaus-willing-to-tolerate-errors-experts-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
“The credit bureaus are willing to tolerate these errors — and settle with consumers out of court — as a cost of doing business, according to credit experts and lawyers who work on these cases.”
Why thank you . Amazing thing that seems very strange to me. Kind of like saying all woman need a man to produce children from her body, but , that is not science because a test tube is not a man.
Reminds me of educational theory, if a school educates all of the students to their highest possible level , the superintendent must change the curriculum to demonstrate his ability to improve the system and justify his position,.
So,belief in the sanctity of birth certificates is false because there is evidence that one is fake?
But I do thank you for providing an answer that lead to my learning something.
Whether I agree with the concept is a different matter.
None! why should I , they are not President today!
And this is evidence that this particular person was one of those?
How much did that person collect from the credit bureaus for this mistake in his record
When a woman conceives through artificial insemination, where do you think the semen comes from?
Have you forgotten the miracle birth of someone?
Have you seen Jesus’ birth certificate?
Oh, hecko, you really think I believe that Obama was in all those other states living there.
And that there are not people using fake addresses.
There is no proof of anything only evidence that must be considered and a decision made as to the validity
You refuse to even consider anything as evidence that disagrees with your beliefs.
There is irrefutable evidence that the database records about Obama which are relied upon by Sankey, Sampson, Daniels, et al. are replete with errors. How many of those errors came from credit bureaus is unknown because I have not seen Obama’s credit report.
J.D. Sue: Frankly, Helen, one of the most offensive things I’ve read by you is your assertion that you think like a woman. That just casts a false and negative light on women everywhere.
HEAR, HEAR!!!!!! i am offended that “helen” thinks and asserts that all women think like she does – i don’t know of any women who don’t change their opinions in light of new, credible evidence – going around in circles is not what we do – we are researchers whether it’s the best prices for the best products or the best school systems or what obama was doing from scooping ice cream in 1976 to working for various companies/organizations while at columbia in the early 80s to working in the legal field while at harvard and after – not to mention his teaching at chicago law from 1993 to – 2004 – (his final exams are online -1996-2003) ) “20 years in DC” is not in the realm of possibilities
Now you owe me a new irony meter.
I have wasted enough time dealing with you today.
Does the stork deliver test tubes?
And when they were? Which ones were you concerned about?
Hello?
Ok , visualise this, as a theory, Obama gets into the CIA ranks after school graduation, maintains a CIA apartment in Washington for those years and gets his mail there for CIA purposes, After 20years , he retires from them to run for Congress.
Falsifiable,
You think working for the CIA is dishonorable.
I don’t care about those presidents as I was not under the desk with any of them, and never even shook their hands,
Have you shaken the hand of the President?
Dishonesty, hypocrisy and projection all wrapped up into a single sentence. Not to mention a heaping side of irony…
Hmm. Let’s see how that works out mathematically: Obama first ran for public office (Illinois State Senate) in 1996. So…..20 years before that was 1976 when he was 15 years old. Wow!! Obama went to work for the CIA when he was 15. What a guy!
I wonder what the CIA used him for since he couldn’t drive or drink. What’s your thinking on that, helen?
If you had behaved similarly toward other presidents it would have been strong evidence that you were not prejudiced against President Obama specifically. As it is, this statement is strong evidence that you lack integrity.
Which President?
“Under the desk”??
How in helll would I know,I was not there to see it, or even in the State
How do you KNOW where he was born, You believe he was born in Hawaii, does your belief make it true?
—
Donna, I don’t think Helen is actually a woman. “She” certainly didn’t sound like a woman when she made a bogus claim of misogyny against one of the commenters–he had said nothing that even hinted at misogyny–and real women know the difference. (Of course, as a birther, false allegations are the m/o).
And thanks for reminding me of Obama’s time at U of C.
Helen,
You can’t just say “falsifiable”, you need to explain how it could be falsified.
Honestly, I wish there was a god and I could be there when he sent you to hell for bearing false witness (not to mention being a complete hypocrite and extremely dishonest). You clearly have no understanding of the teachings of Jesus.
—-
Ah, a new false allegation is born, this time about what I think about CIA employment. Joe McCarthy would be proud of you.
Because the evidence for that is so much better than the evidence of President Obama’s Hawai’ian birth? Are you so sure that DNA tests wouldn’t have shown that Jesus had a very human father?
Has anyone denied my claim that the original birth certificate is not a GOVERNMENTAL DOCUMENT, and there by not entitled to the full faith and credit of the statutes
—-
She seems to be implying she was under the desk with Obama.
Again, I don’t think “Helen” is actually a woman. She sounds more like a man trying to imitate a woman (poorly).
Where do you think Bush (either or both) were born? How about Reagan?
Or….going back further….how about Jesus? Where do you think he was born?
I took the “under the desk” comment as a ham handed reference to Monica Lewinsky and “shaking hands” with a President but maybe I just have a dirty mind.
As it regards helen I would say gender identity is the least of her/his problems.
The long form birth certificate…..the original record of Obama’s birth…..is on a printed form that says at the top: State of Hawaii – Certificate of Live Birth – Department of Health”.
Here it is in case you forgot what it looks like:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf
If that isn’t a “GOVERNMENTAL DOCUMENT” then what is it?
I’m not surprised that the scientific method seems strange to you and from your comment you still don’t understand it. Your analogies are barely more than word salad which aren’t even coherent, let alone valid.
You don’t have to agree that science is the best methodology for understanding the universe—the evidence speaks for itself. The fact that you disbelieve it while using a computer that wouldn’t exist without science speaks volumes about how foolish your beliefs are.
—-
Yes, repeatedly. They are government records, entitled to full faith and credit, and self-authenticating under court rules of evidence. Isn’t that why you moved on to the debt collection database, CIA, and virgin birth conspiracy theories?
All of the certified copies of the birth certificate are unquestionably government documents and clearly entitled to full faith and credit. Do you deny that?
My personal prejudice is to assign the gender male to all trolls. Who cares–just a dumb birther.
There will be.
–Yoda
Ha! Yes, quite likely. Maybe an airport, as well.
There, in a nutshell, is a classic birther.
She accepts as true a birth which has to be taken on faith alone, because there is not a single contemporaneous record to document it. Where are the photos of Joseph and Mary holding the baby Jesus?
She denies as true a birth which has been documented by a contemporaneous birth certificate, contemporaneous newspaper notices, near-contemporaneous State Department records, and has been verified repeatedly by the State of Hawaii.
Confirmation Bias, thy name is Helen.
She’s not a woman it’s traderjack same claims Jack used to make here. It’s a troll
Yes…Many times…including me, on this very thread.
Helen,
All birth certificates are taken as valid, unless sufficient evidence to the contrary exists. I’ll give you an example of what it would actually take.
The birth certificate says the father is Bubba Gump. Bubba Gump then takes a paternity test with the child, and it’s determined that Bubba Gump is not the biological father of the child. Then that would be enough evidence to overcome that paticular point on the birth certificate. (Whether or not that matters is another matter. Family courts have long complicated matters).
What that doesn’t mean is that you can just go, “Well, this says something I don’t believe. Therefore, I’m going to give you a reason that the birth certificate may be a forgery, even though it doesn’t make any sense to anybody explaining, and that will mean that he hasn’t proven that he was born.”
Are you joking, Of course it is a governmental document!
It is a certified copy of a document that is in the files.
the government created it and that makes it a governmental document,
If the government created the original they could create another one without affecting anything couldn’t they.
Hey, do you think they did that?
This is nuts, helen. You said the original document isn’t a “GOVERNMENTAL DOCUMENT” and now you’re saying it is.
The “government” didn’t create the original document. The hospital did, or at least the information on it.
Now….if you have any evidence that someone or something other than the hospital filled out the original long form, or created another one, let’s see it.
Do you folks not understand that originals are originals and not copies.
Bustamante Xlll created a late filed birth certificate, and the State of California created a certified copy of said birth certificate, and federal government claimed in court that the original was a fake.
How could the original be fake if the certified copy is a governmental document that is entitled to be presumed true in court.
Would the feds claim it was a fake if the government created the original.
From Wikipedia”
An exemplified copy (or exemplification) is an official attested copy or transcript of a public instrument, made under the seal and original pen-in-hand signature[1] of a court or public functionary[2] and in the name of the sovereign,[3] e.g., “The People of the State of New York”. Exemplifications can only be attested and executed by either the authority holding the record or the issuing authority. Exemplified copies are also usually an extract or transcript made directly from the original.
They can be contrasted with certified copies which are attested bya public authority who does not necessarily execute the copy; are signed and sealed by the certifier, not necessarily the issuing authority or recorder; and are a facsimile, made from the original or not, and vary
as to faithfulness, e.g., fair copy, imitative copy, and so forth
My goodness, they don’t think a certified copy is an absolute copy at all.
that might clear up some of your mis-conceptions.
Helen,
Thankfully there are only 15 more comments left to reply to your dishonest BS. Once again, you misunderstand the term “prima facie“. It has the presumption of fact unless there is evidence to the contrary. You keep bringing up cases where there is evidence to the contrary and trying to compare them to President Obama’s case where there is no such evidence. If you had a foreign birth certificate backed by foreign officials and proof of fraud by the Hawai’i DoH then you could overcome the presumption that President Obama was born in Hawai’i, but, in the absence of that, all you are doing is showing your self to be a dishonest hypocrite and bearing false witness. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
helen knows no shame.
That is profound.
—-
The nut in a nutshell.
If I were a christian (I’m not) I’d be embarrassed to belong to any church “helen” belongs to. Just saying.
All this silly CIA rambling reminds me that I made the mistake of watching Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Since I had not seen it before the dawn of the birther era, and particularly the birther’s CIA memes, It was really hard to remember that that movie preceded the birther era.
Swap out the main character, change the unlikely career field from television to politics …
“Bustamante Xlll”
The trolljack signature.
Same b.s. and idiotic FUD tactic.
This is where Austin Powers chimes in and says “That’s a man babay”
Technically, the creation of the original birth certificate was joint effort by the hospital, Dr. Sinclair, Obama’s mother, and the Department of Health. They all played a part in creating it. A clerk at the hospital typed it, Dr. Sinclair and Stanley Ann signed it, and Verna K. Lee then signed it and stamped it.
Of course, Obama would have had to pass a rigorous background check to be hired by the CIA, and the birthers insist that he couldn’t qualify for a security clearance.
Doc would know better but I suspect the hospital is charged with coordinating with the doctors and family to make sure the completed document gets to the state in a timely manner.
Excellent point!
I prefer the theory that he lived in D.C. for twenty years while he was part of a top secret Pentagon cloning program. It was, no doubt, as deduced from the available evidence, an advanced program in which they were able to speed up the clone’s maturity and transfer the original’s personality. Given this theory, I think we spend too much time worrying about forged birth certificates. We clearly have bigger concerns. After all, each clone will be allowed two terms as president. Clearly, the clone program is a way to circumvent the Constitution!
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
I want a bumper sticker that says Obama – Biden 2016 just to drive the bigoted lunatics into an apoplectic frenzy.
How about Obama – Obama 2016?