Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Arus808]

How many of the 42 Presidents before Obama released their Birth Certificate as part of an eligibility affirmation? 0 ( can't say 43 because Grover Cleveland actually served twice, non-consecutively)


Obama has provided more proof than what was necessary. He is doing the right thing by ignoraing morons with an inability to face reality:

A black man was elected President of the United States.

 

[Arus808]

If a "long-form" certificate were to be produced, the birthers would just denounce it as a forgery on the grounds that Hawaii no longer issues them.

Farrah and Corsi of World Nut Daily said as much already (that anything Hawaii provides will not be accepted); remember birthers can fall back to using Vattel as a scape goat (Obama's father wasn't a US citizen)


The best thing that Obama can do? What he is doing right now. Ignore them.

 

[Arus808]

How do you know? Have you seen the so-called long form? Do you know the hospital? Do you know the doctor's name? You seem to be the one who want's to "believe" without evidence. The one who is not acting like a *skeptic*.

As shown in this very thread, of which you skipped over answering directly, the doctors name is known. Doctor West. REad through this very thread.

No it is not, as the wording of the Hawaiian law provided above (and ignored by you) proves. And don't you know by now that government officials lie, ANTPogo? All the time.

Not according to the recent ruling in Hawaii
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/..._lawsuit_seeking_Obama_birth_certificate.html

Finding:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/52517375/Justice-v-Fuddy-No-30176-HAWICA-Apr-7-2011


And I'll take a Judge's interpretation of Hawaii's laws over an anonymous know nothing like yourself.

You are the one who was dishonest. You claimed there were only anonymous claims when in fact I'd supplied you with a claim from a named party who provided documentary proof of what was claimed.

Actually you are confusing the issue since Miki Booth has been shown to be a liar and a birther with an agenda

She has release 3 version of Hawaii COLB's. 1 of her son in 1981 ( which seems to be the one she GOT in 1981, which HAwaii hasn't used in since 1989)

One that she requested for Alan Booth, which came on a 2010 generated COLB (which matches the versions I posted earlier in this thread) - essentially the SAME as Obama's

--- Word of note, Miki Booth's son , Alan is part Hawaiian and there is a need for some COLB's to list the parental race and birth as part of the COLB issued to native Hawaiians to QUALIFY for the Department of Hawaiian Homelands. If you're not Hawaiian nor qualify for DHHL, COLB's issued would be the standard layout.

She requested a "long form" copy of her sons 1981 COLB, of which she received, however it CONTAINED no official seal, no registrar signature and NO date of issuance. Only a "receipt" that she copied to say that she paid $10 for (and of which no one has verified that that receipt was used to obtain said copy).

She then releases a COLB that was received on Mar 15 to her Facebook page, a COLB that looks to be like a long form from an anonymous poster who is friends with her. < --- THAT IS THE anonymous form we question as we do not know if its authentic or not. The problem is, that SAME form that she posted ot her FACEBOOK was posted to the pest And EFail, and it had no official seal or signature or date.


Now she reports through the Pest and Efail that some unknown man went to the Department of Health, and relates a story that forms at the DoH HAVE changed , where one could "choose" to get an abstract or a copy of the original, to having those boxes "gone" from the form, despite the FACT that said form (of which I posted an example of ), contained no "check boxes" offering those choices. And said form is th same form that is available as an online PDF download. And that said form hasn't changed since at least 2004.

But that's not true in this case. The head of the Hawaiian Department of Health … the one you cited … stated that he had personally looked at Obama's so-called "long form" not once but twice and he stated exactly where it is now located.

SHE looked at it twice. If you can't even get the gender of the person in question correct, why should we believe what you say?

So he merely has to walk over there, get it, and take it to a copy machine to resolve this whole controversy.

Not without the EXPRESSED permission of the person who that record belongs to. And not in violation of several privacy laws SHE couldn't.

She could only use the form to AFFIRM what was publicly known at the time.

Obama says he was born in Hawaii - released a COLB that says he was born in HAwaii. She could only affirm that yes, he was born in HAwaii

Any other information (at that time) that wasn't confirmed by Obama, she couldn't comment on.

You're spinning, and I think everyone can see it. What's in that document that you fear?

nothing. since we don't fear the truth. it seems that birthers have a fear that a black man could actually be the president of the United States

 

[CptColumbo]

Already did, but you just ignored it. It's there in black and white in the law.



Noone else had a direct and tangible need to have it released.

Do you know why "[no one] else had a direct and tangible need to have it released?"
Because you do not need one. The Ceritfied copy released by the state is all that is needed.

Unlike Obama. So the inability to satisfy your request isn't surprising. Nor is anyone else *The President* with the powers that office enjoys. But Obama does have a direct and tangible need to have it released. And like I said, if push came to shove, Obama could order the release of the document with an Executive Order which would have the force of Federal Law.

Which "Federal Law" is that?

I doubt the humble head of the Hawaiian DoH would resist that.

Yes, he/she can.

Especially if Obama made it a National Security Directive, since the concern is that this growing doubt could lead to internal strife and possibly damage the morale and reliability of our armed forces.

It is not in the interest of National Security to satify the whim of every nut and racist in the world. Especially when doing what you are asking would still not satisfy them.

In fact, the Governor of Hawaii could also issue an Executive Order. That would also have the same binding effect as Hawaiian law. So sorry, Redtail, but you're just making excuses like the others ... excuses to prevent the release of something that you all claim is innocuous. What should that tell us, folks?

I think you overestimate the power of the Governor of Hawaii. I'm not aware of any state governor who can overturn a law or ignore it once it has been signed into effect. He could ask the state legislature to pass a bill that re-writes the law. However, they have no reason to waste the time and money on doing so, since they are Hawaiians (for the most part) and know what sort of birth certificate is issued by the state.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I hate Obama, and I think birthirism rivals trutherism in stupidity. If Hillary Clinton got elected there would be people screaming for proof that she was actually a woman based on her birth certificate. *

This birtherism conspiracy needs to die, sooner rather than later. Obama would not have even gotten into running for candidate nominations if he didn't qualify, it's that simple. If you don't like him deal with it until you can elect him out of office or until his term runs out.


*I only mention Clinton here since the election was full of "firsts" and you know how the deal goes with many of these conspiracy theories; if it has never happened before then it won't happen ever, because it didn't happen beforehand... or whatever...

BTW, law or no law interpretation, I find the complaints about not having his birth certificate released preposterously nit picky. The press would have been all over this kind of news like the 3rd coming of Reverend Wright's "GD America" prophecy, especially FOX where a particularly large number of their hosts are pretty much straight forward conservatives.

 

[A'isha]

She requested a "long form" copy of her sons 1981 COLB, of which she received, however it CONTAINED no official seal, no registrar signature and NO date of issuance. Only a "receipt" that she copied to say that she paid $10 for (and of which no one has verified that that receipt was used to obtain said copy).

Actually, the uncertified and undated white-paper photocopy is not Booth's son's certificate (or the certificate of any member of her family). That copy and its supposed receipt were posted by a Free Republic member who goes by the online handle "Danae", but is otherwise entirely anonymous as well.

The only "long form" certificates Booth has provided are her husband's 1949 original, her son's 1981 original, and the supposed March 2011 anonymous one. She hasn't yet explained why she hasn't obtained a post-2001 copy of either her husband's or her son's "long form".

 

[BeAChooser]

No one "fears" having anything released.

Sure seems like your side does. And appearances are everything. Right?

This thing is all about goal post moving

I haven't moved any goal posts. All I've wanted from the beginning is for Obama and the Hawaiian DoH to do what the law clearly says they can ... publish the so-called "long form" that the DoH head said exists and that he had seen twice, in order to eliminate the growing doubt in the American people about the legitimacy of the Obama Presidency. In the interests of national harmony and security. So we can focus more intently on the mess Obama and company have made of the economy, foreign policy, health care and what not. And the reason I'm not a birther is that I truly hope that doing so will turn out the way you expect since what rationale American would want a Constitutional Crisis of this magnitude in a time of war and depression?

Personally, I applaud Obama for not kowtowing to your insanity.

Do you know that box you are in has a lid?

 

[Sabrina]

There is no issue in the Armed Forces beyond an extremely small fraction of a percentage of people who are not aware of the actual regulations currently in force.

Put simply, while the President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he does not order the military to do much of anything. Orders come from either an immediate superior or the Department of Defense. Therefore, Obama's citizenship is not an issue for anyone in the military. Those who claim it is are either dissemblers who have finally realized that joining the military can mean risking your life if necessary or are simply lazy ******** who don't want to do the job they signed up for.

And as for National Security; please. There is no National Security issue regarding the President's citizenship. What IS at issue is the President's right (same as any other American) to keep his Personally Identifiable Information (or PII) private. He has already done MORE than he needs to by releasing his COLB (which is accepted as proof of citizenship at every location and by every agency that would require one, to include the DMV, any government agency you could name, and all institutions of learning, as well as by the Supreme Court of the United States). Demanding more would violate his right to privacy and opens the door for even more intrusions into our personal lives, IMO.

Put simply, BAC, your arguments are idiotic. The COLB satisfies every law, both state and federal, there is that requires proof of citizenship before holding office. It is only idiot birthers who think there isn't enough on the COLB to satisfy the law.

I would like you to answer me two questions, honestly, truthfully, and completely, BAC. What EXACTLY are you interested in on the "long form" birth certificate; by which I mean, what information are you looking for on it? And what exactly do you believe that information will then prove? Come on; be the first birther ever to explain this!

 

[headscratcher4]

"But Obama does have a direct and tangible need to have it released"

Even if this mattered, which it doesn't, it isn't true. Obama has no need to have it released. There is no legally credible (or otherwise credible) challenge to the validity of the State Certified COLB. He's not been denied a passport, a security clearance, admission to college or any other thing where a State certified birth certificate is required. No credible agency challenges the authenticity or validity of the State document. Ergo, Obama has no tangible need to show or expose the underlying electronic record that, by state law, is not public.

Your sense of Obama's "need" makes no case for need of any kind.

The only way, IMO, Obama would have access or need to force access to the underlying electronic document would be -- and it is a cause that belongs only to him -- were he denied some service or some right due to a conclusion by a state or federal government based upon some doubt raised about the validity of of the state certified document. No such denile has occured. The document -- the COLB -- is accepted and acceptable everywhere for what it is: proof of where Obama was born.

The bigger point needs to be stressed here, to view this otherwise is to undermine the entire regime of full faith and credit, transparancy, parity and state's honoring each others documents that currently exists in this country. If Obama's certified COLB can be challenged without any credible foundation, than EVERY docment certified by the State of Hawaii may than...following the argument to the logical extreme...suspect. If Obama's State certified COLB is somehow suspect, specifically, all Hawaii certified COLBs must be equally suspect. No state should honor them. Passports should be denied to Hawaiians, security clerances, military service, college admissions, marriage licences, drivers licences, etc. all would be suspect.

BAC may be fine with that, it just doesn't make any sense.

 

[A'isha]

I haven't moved any goal posts.

You can't even keep your arguments straight! You've argued both that Hawaii state law says that anyone can get a "long form" certificate (so Obama should request his), and that the reason Miki Booth couldn't get a "long form" certificate is that she's just a regular citizen and thus subject the Hawaii state law preventing her from getting one (so Obama should issue an Executive Order overriding the state law so he can get his).

And you argued both of the above in the same post!

publish the so-called "long form" that the DoH head said exists and that he had seen twice,

SHE. Both the former and the current heads of the Hawaii DOH are female.

You've already been corrected on this, too, which just goes to show how little you're concerned with actual facts here.[/QUOTE]

 

[sts60]

Sure you do. Else you wouldn't object to having what you claim is a totally innocuous document placed in the public domain...

This claim doesn't get any more correct with repetition.

Actually, you did. You said you didn't believe that "most of these people" would change their minds. Well "most" is over 50% of those in the GOP who believe that ...

I doubt your source is accurate, but in any case it doesn't matter. The problem is the crazy belief, not the political affiliation of who believes it.

So you claim. But then it's easy to make such claims from the anonymity of the internet.

That I am a registered unaffiliated (i.e., independent) voter is an objective fact. I don't care whether you believe it or not; it's not in my job description to support your attempt to pigeonhole people who laugh at birthers into a particular political affiliation - an inconsistent attempt, since you have both insisted people arguing with you must be Democrats/leftists, and also cited polls claiming x% of Democrats believe this idiocy.

It's possible...

I don't care whether it is or not. A birth certificate certified by the State of Hawaii has already been released. Your claim that you would suddenly believe another one confirming the first is what I don't believe... see below.

...But politicians are subject to influence, as we've seen time and again..

Once again, you're contradicting yourself. In just a few pages, you've implicated the current Administration, much of the Republican leadership, and the State of Hawaii in this vast conspiracy you insist is fighting the release of this form, presumably because of some damning information on it. Yet you, apparently with a straight face, insist that you'd accept a form this very same conspiracy would release to you if only it had certain words on it in a certain format! That's ridiculous. (Which is why I ridicule it.)

...What is in that document that has them in panic, slash and burn mode?

The only "panic" I see is from birthers who continue to promote this artificial controversy.

So you claim.

Again, I'm a registered unaffiliated voter. I don't care whether you accept that fact or not. But, as noted above, your insistence in trying to claim so is contradicted by your own attempts to cite polls showing Democrat "birthers".

...Well this report, from April 2009, concluded that more than a million had been paid to quash eligibility suits: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=95772...

Citing crank sources like WND doesn't help you either.

But I do get it. That's exactly what this is about. The damage that this doubt is causing to the civil discourse and faith in the government....

Your posting history suggests otherwise. I don't care about your political viewpoints, but clearly you are strongly opposed to the current Administration and its policies, and have made many posts to that effect.

But military morale is such a tricky thing. A little thing like this could seriously harm morale. Like a cancer. Cause us to lose the WOT even.

Fantasy.

Ah … so now you seem to admitting that publishing the long form would resolve this. Just what I've been saying.

Wrong. I think that if a form such as you keep whining about could be and was published as you specify, we would only resolve whether you would accept it or not.

But I don't think that will happen. Here's what I predict:
1a. Mr. Obama will lose the 2012 election and will conclude his term in Jan 2013, or
1b. Mr. Obama will win the 2012 election and will conclude his term in Jan 2017.
2. There will be no aha moment which you seek. No smoking gun, no magic piece of paper showing that he was born in Kenya, or on Vulcan, or is a shape-shifting reptilian from the 3-7/8th dimension.
3. Like the other birthers, you'll go on obsessing about this - something like five dozen Obama conspiracy posts in the past couple of weeks alone? Wow! - and some politicians will entertain your obsession to obtain political support. But you'll never actually accomplish anything in terms of proving your beliefs.
4. There will be an increase in birther noise up to the 2012 election, gradually decaying to some residual level, then dwindling after Mr. Obama completes his final term in office. The "birther" conspiracy will become a historical curiousity like the Apollo hoax claims.
5. And this one I absolutely guarantee - I'm not wasting any more time engaging with you. You're obsessed with it, and you're all over the map in exactly the same way I've seen from the aformentioned Apollo conspiracts. I'm not even bothering putting you on ignore; there's just no point in engaging with you, and I've wasted enough time already - and your post rate is an order of magnitude higher than mine.

I'm sorry you've invested yourself so heavily in this paranoid nonsense. But, as your own handle suggests, it's your choice to do so rather than doing something sane and productive.

 

[BeAChooser]

C'mon Bac, just a little shred of evidence. Why are you stalling?

LOL! I just assumed you'd have read the thread before opening your mouth. Silly me.

The "shred" of evidence you claim was never posted can be found in post #2496 which came from http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm . In other words, the wording of the law itself. It's significance was clearly explained by me in posts #2500, #2507 and #2524. Did you not see those posts?

As anyone who can read English can see, the law quite clearly states that the Department of Health can issue a certified copy of "ANY" record to an applicant with a "direct and tangible interest in the record". And it lists "the registrant" as a person considered to have a "direct and tangible interest". Thus, Obama should be able to get a certified "copy" of "ANY record" in the DoH's possession. That would naturally include the so-called "long form" for Obama, that the head of the DoH has said exists because he's looked at twice (and therefore knows where it is located).

By the way, here's a statement by Fukino in 2008 that

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

That last part is an admission that the original birth certificate is subject to Hawaii's Revised Statutes Section 338-18 linked above. "ANY record". Case closed. You are a LIAR. I did supply "a shred of evidence". And you are the one stalling … stalling to keep some innocuous document that you insist has nothing unexpected in it out of public view. I wonder why?

 

[BeAChooser]

Farrah and Corsi of World Nut Daily said as much already (that anything Hawaii provides will not be accepted)

Please provide proof of this claim.

 

[A'isha]

By the way, here's a statement by Fukino in 2008 that

http://hawaii.gov/health/about/pr/2008/08-93.pdf

That last part is an admission that the original birth certificate is subject to Hawaii's Revised Statutes Section 338-18 linked above.

It's actually a response to the accusation that Obama's birth records were being treated differently from everyone else's records (ie, the accusation that the Governor and/or the DOH were refusing to release those records when they should have released them).

Specifically, this accusation here on October 26th, 2008 from your buddies at World Net Daily, where they make the utterly false claim that "WND has learned that Hawaii's Gov. Linda Lingle has placed the candidate's birth certificate under seal and instructed the state's Department of Health to make sure no one in the press obtains access to the original document under any circumstances."

Dr. Fukino's statement from October 31st, 2008 above was refuting WND's claim, and has nothing to do with your total misreading of HRS 338.

Though I see that once again you totally accept the words of someone you consider a liar when you think they agree with you, but think they're lying when they disagree with you (such as Dr. Fukino's statements here).

 

[BeAChooser]

As shown in this very thread, of which you skipped over answering directly, the doctors name is known. Doctor West.

Odd. I searched for "West " on each page of this thread and find no mention of a Doctor West. Can you point out the specific post? Or are you just lying again?

Not according to the recent ruling in Hawaii

An appeal to authority? You see the flaw in that, don't you? And besides, the ruling you cited dismissed the lawsuit because the judge concluded that the plaintiff didn't have a "direct and tangible interest" in the document. But surely Obama has such an interest. Indeed, the law clearly states that he does. So if he were to ask the Hawaiian DoH to make a copy of the document for release, there would be no obstacle in their doing that, according to the law. So why won't Obama do that? What does he gain by letting this growing doubt persist? Surely, letting it persist is not in the interests of the nation? It could even become a major issue during the coming Presidential race.

Miki Booth has been shown to be a liar

By all means, provide the proof that the images of the two "long form" birth certificates she provided (and I linked) are fraudulent. Tick tick tick …

She has release 3 version of Hawaii COLB's. … snip … One that she requested for Alan Booth, which came on a 2010 generated COLB (which matches the versions I posted earlier in this thread) - essentially the SAME as Obama's

LIAR. Anyone looking at the birth certificate for her husband … the black form … can easily see that it contains the name of the doctor and the hospital he was born. So obviously that's not "essentially the same" or we wouldn't be having this debate.

Quote:
So he merely has to walk over there, get it, and take it to a copy machine to resolve this whole controversy.

Not without the EXPRESSED permission of the person who that record belongs to.

Which is ENTIRELY THE POINT. Why won't Obama give that permission? What is he trying to hide because I can see no reason for him not doing that if the contents of the document are as innocuous as claimed. And neither can Chris Matthews, who surely has no "birther agenda".

since we don't fear the truth.

Sure you do and it's plain as day.

 

[Taarkin]

Especially if Obama made it a National Security Directive, since the concern is that this growing doubt could lead to internal strife and possibly damage the morale and reliability of our armed forces.

Is birthers really were a threat to national security (they're not) and Obama were to declare a National Security Directive over them (he shouldn't), why not just throw them all in Gitmo?

 

[headscratcher4]

Internal strife. You funny.

 

[BeAChooser]

Do you know why "[no one] else had a direct and tangible need to have it released?"
Because you do not need one. The Ceritfied copy released by the state is all that is needed.

LOL! Defense by circular logic.

Quote:
I doubt the humble head of the Hawaiian DoH would resist that.

Yes, he/she can.

LOL! Does this:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1lGFYYNkw_o/TP56QW1f5MI/AAAAAAAACPk/pK4thBA-Cas/s1600/DrFukino.jpg

look like someone who could stand up to the wishes of the President of the US? LOL!

It is not in the interest of National Security to satify the whim of every nut and racist in the world.

But it is in the interest of National Security to clear this up. Because as I noted earlier, doubts about the legitimacy of the President are the seeds of anarchy. They need to be addressed and the easiest way to do that is simply copy and publish this one long form document. No harm no foul. What possible damage could it do Obama or any of his kin? None, if all is as you claim. But now we have multiple court suits, soldiers refusing to serve because of their doubts, more than half the people in one of the country's two largest party's saying they aren't sure he's a citizen, and numerous top leaders and media people (including some on the left) expressing their doubts. Surely, in this case, Obama could see the wisdom of asking the Hawaiian authorities to release his so-called "long form" birth certificate that they have stated exists? Why are you folks so afraid of this issue?

I think you overestimate the power of the Governor of Hawaii. I'm not aware of any state governor who can overturn a law or ignore it once it has been signed into effect.

Well first of all, noone is asking that a law be overturned. As I've clearly pointed out, I just want to see the letter of the law applied. The law clearly states that Obama has a direct and tangible interest and that the DoH can provide a certified copy of "ANY" document in it's permission to such a person. And Fukino said the original birth certificate would be treated no differently than any other document in DoH possession.

And second, President and Governors do have such power if they deem the need is great. Executive Directives have the force of law and that's been the position of the executive branch of the Federal Government (and courts) for years. Same goes for Governor ED's. They are highly binding.

 

[BeAChooser]

This birtherism conspiracy needs to die, sooner rather than later.

And Obama could make that happen tomorrow just by requesting that the Hawaii DoH make a certified copy of the so-called "long form" original birth certificate ... the one with the doctor's signature on it ... and publish it. So why doesn't he do that? Chris Matthews would like to know. So would I.

 

[A'isha]

LIAR. Anyone looking at the birth certificate for her husband … the black form … can easily see that it contains the name of the doctor and the hospital he was born. So obviously that's not "essentially the same" or we wouldn't be having this debate.

Except she didn't say that the 2010 form for Booth's son was "essentially the same" as the 1949 form. She said that the 2010 form for Booth's son was "essentially the same" as Obama's 2007 form. Which it is.

You can even compare when the "short form" format was revised - Obama's form is dated November 2001, while Alan Booth's was dated October of 2008.