Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Accidental Martyr]

Its a wonderful world BAC lives in.

Yes, a fantasy world.

 

[Arus808]

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.

thank you for that correction. Birthers and their crusade, turn into one "globular" entity, as they all repeat the same crap over and over again; even if by different people


That's correct, it was DANAE.

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".

Thank you again for that correction. Someone needs to write an encyclopedia on these nutters.

 

[Taarkin]

Here's my first draft. Tell me what you think.

Better get Jack Bauer on the case; he doesn't let pantywaist liberal ideas like "laws" get in the way of his investigations...

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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".

I'm willing to bet that she did order new birth certificates and they sent her COLB forms.

I'm also willing to bet that the stamp on one of those is astonishingly similer to the March 2011 anonymous one.

 

[Arus808]

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?

You searched crap in this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7084168&postcount=2582


ANTPogo has provided much of the information you need about the doctor who would have delivered Obama.
And not just in this thread; many other threads on BIRTHERISM in this forum

You'd be wrong. It was Dr. Rodney T. West, an obstetrician who spent virtually his entire life and career in Hawaii, and was in the Navy during World War II (he was actually at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese attacked, and used his medical skills to aid the wounded in the aftermath).

EDIT: Found a better bio of the good doctor (from the website for a book he wrote about the attacks), one that confirms he delivered babies at the Kapi`olani Maternity Hospital.

You could have found most of this information on your own with a simple google search (found it in 2 seconds):

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp (which also referred to the article posted by ANTPogo

When Barack Hussein Obama places his hand on the Bible to take the oath of office as 44th president of the United States, Barbara Nelson of Kenmore will undoubtedly think back to the day he was born. It was Aug. 4, 1961, at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children in Honolulu.

"I may be the only person left who specifically remembers his birth. His parents are gone, his grandmother is gone, the obstetrician who delivered him is gone," said Nelson, referring to Dr. Rodney T. West, who died in February at the age of 98. Here's the story: Nelson was having dinner at the Outrigger Canoe Club on Waikiki Beach with Dr. West, the father of her college friend, Jo-Anne. Making conversation, Nelson turned to Dr. West and said: "So, tell me something interesting that happened this week," she recalls.

His response: "Well, today, Stanley had a baby. Now that's something to write home about."

The new mother was Stanley (later referred to by her middle name of Ann) Dunham, and the baby was Barack Hussein Obama.

"I penned the name on a napkin, and I did write home about it," said Nelson, knowing that her father, Stanley A. Czurles, director of the Art Education Department at Buffalo State College, would be interested in the "Stanley" connection.

She also remembers Dr. West mentioning that the baby's father was the first black student at the University of Hawaii and how taken he was by the baby's name.

"I remember Dr. West saying 'Barack Hussein Obama, now that's a musical name,'" said Nelson.

Ten years after that memorable birth announcement, Nelson would hear the Obama name again. This time, the father, now a Kenyan government official, was coming to speak at the Punahou School in Honolulu where Nelson was teaching and where his 10-year-old son was a newly enrolled fifth-grader.

http://mysite.ncnetwork.net/res10o2yg/obama/Teacher%20from%20Kenmore%20recalls%20Obama%20was%20a%20focused%20student%20%20Don%27t%20Miss%20%20The%20Buffalo%20News.htm

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.

WTF??? ARE YOU FREAKING SERIOUS???

The VERY LAW you are using to support your asinine claims is the VERY LAW THAT WAS used to start the ORIGINAL CASE THAT WAS DISMISSED and appealed!

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY?

You're so not even trying to be a troll anymore. YOU are simply being a coward when you can't even ADMIt you are wrong!

The LAW you are using to support your claims (albeit wrongly) is the VERY law that brought about the original case. That case was dismissed. The person who brought that original complaint APPEALED it. The judge in that case ruled that the LAW, the VERY one you keep on misinterpreting, allows only those who are close to OBAMA to have access to his vital records. Neither you, nor I or Joe Public has any right to see those records.

end of story.

That's what Judges do.

The judge also said that Obama is a Natural born citizen.

But surely Obama has such an interest.

He doesn't. He proved his eligibility by releasing his COLB. His interest died during the 2008 campaign.

Indeed, the law clearly states that he does.

No he doesn't. He has no need to release anything more. It was an interest when he was campaigning. He is not campaigning, and since he is already President, he doesn't have any interest to get anything more during his re-election campaign.

A law doesn't dictate a person's belief or "interest" in this case.

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.

Actually he can't demand the DoH to do anything more than what joe public can do.

To get Hawaii to relase anything more, the GOVERNOR and the House and Senate of Hawaii will have to draft a law/bill that would make vital records more open.

Not going to happen.

So why won't Obama do that? What does he gain by letting this growing doubt persist?

He doesn't have to cowtow to neanderthals who can't believe that a black man with a foreign sounding name can be President of the United States.

There is no growing doubt. There are blowhards and idiots, but no growing doubt. The only people who buy into this nonsense are those who would never vote for him in the first place and morons with an agenda, who are mostly racists, sovereign citizens and seditionists.

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 …

already have. several times through various birhte threads. this one, the Trump one... etc

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.

did you bother to read my post, no you didn't because I said the 2010 computer generated one; not the original one.

here is what I said:

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

Reading comprehension fail on your part.

Which is ENTIRELY THE POINT. Why won't Obama give that permission?

Because, a smart person ignores the insane rantings of racists.

 

[Arus808]

Funny how someone that is so-called half white and black it just called black. Funny country this is.

Paul

He identifies himself as being black. He recognizes his white heritage, but he has embraced himself as being black.

I'm caucasian Japanese, yet I consider myself Japanese. I don't look like a typical Japanese, but I grew in a culture that was influenced by the Japanese.

I even fill out applications that ask for race with a check box in the "Asian" or "Japanese" suggestions.

 

[A'isha]

Thank you again for that correction. Someone needs to write an encyclopedia on these nutters.

No problem. And yeah, it's definitely a lot to keep track of.

Though I've noticed that birthers tend to repeat almost exactly the same line of argumentation, in virtually the same order, every time. Which makes it rather easy to refute now, since the same stuff I dug up back when Saggy was going on about it was handy to have around when randman used the same arguments, and now BAC.

The Dr. West stuff, for instance.

I'm willing to bet that she did order new birth certificates and they sent her COLB forms.

I'm also willing to bet that the stamp on one of those is astonishingly similer to the March 2011 anonymous one.

Interestingly, the anonymous March 2011 "long form" certificate that Booth posted an image of in her April 10, 2011 article on the Post and Email had actually appeared before.

In this March 17, 2011 article, also on the Post and Email, about a petition being sent to Hawaiian governor Abercrombie, a rather poor quality white-paper photocopy was shown as an example of the Hawaiin "long form".

They're both images of the same anonymous certificate issued in 1995. However, despite being posted two days after the "March 2011" copy was produced, the March 17 article is not a copy of that supposedly-freshly-issued certificate - the white-paper photocopy has no date and signature from the registrar stamp, despite the section of the certificate having that stamp appearing in the photocopy (you can actually see the bottom edge of the copied certificate).

Either the one certificate was photocopied and then a picture of it later photoshopped, or there should be two identical copies of the certificate, one with the stamp and one without.

If there are two copies, why haven't they been shown side-by-side?

 

[Arus808]

No problem. And yeah, it's definitely a lot to keep track of.

Though I've noticed that birthers tend to repeat almost exactly the same line of argumentation, in virtually the same order, every time. Which makes it rather easy to refute now, since the same stuff I dug up back when Saggy was going on about it was handy to have around when randman used the same arguments, and now BAC.

The Dr. West stuff, for instance.

Yes they are broken records. And they pretty much repeat the insane claims from World Nut Daily, Dr. Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo, Phil Berg (a 911 nutter to boot), James Manning (and his fake play trial), Lucas D (criminal forger) Smith, Ron Polarick , Leo Donofrio (who repeates Mario Apuzzo), and Andy Martin ( the father of birtherism)

Interestingly, the anonymous March 2011 "long form" certificate that Booth posted an image of in her April 10, 2011 article on the Post and Email had actually appeared before.

In this March 17, 2011 article, also on the Post and Email, about a petition being sent to Hawaiian governor Abercrombie, a rather poor quality white-paper photocopy was shown as an example of the Hawaiin "long form".

They're both images of the same anonymous certificate issued in 1995. However, despite being posted two days after the "March 2011" copy was produced, the March 17 article is not a copy of that supposedly-freshly-issued certificate - the white-paper photocopy has no date and signature from the registrar stamp, despite the section of the certificate having that stamp appearing in the photocopy (you can actually see the bottom edge of the copied certificate).

Either the one certificate was photocopied and then a picture of it later photoshopped, or there should be two identical copies of the certificate, one with the stamp and one without.

If there are two copies, why haven't they been shown side-by-side?

this was noticed on several birhter debunking sites as well. mum from the booth camp.

 

[fezzic]

I learned something in this thread that I really didn't expect to learn.

That the copy of my Certificate of Live Birth from 1983 (when I got it for some reason, my DOB is some years before Obama's) is a copy of the long form. Cool.

It must be some kind of photocopy of the original, on special patterned paper, since it has the signature of my mother, the attending physician, and the initials of the local registrar along with the dates they signed.

 

[A'isha]

Hmm...despite telling the Post and Email in a phone call on April 12th that Hawaii only recently (as in, it was available "several weeks ago") removed the checkbox to get a "long form", back in early November of 2010, when pressed about her son's "long form", Miki Booth stated that she requested a "replacement copy" of her son's certificate in April of 2010, and "What they sent is a short form CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH."

No mention of multiple check boxes, or even that the two different forms were available.

 

[Paulhoff]

He identifies himself as being black. He recognizes his white heritage, but he has embraced himself as being black.

I'm caucasian Japanese, yet I consider myself Japanese. I don't look like a typical Japanese, but I grew in a culture that was influenced by the Japanese.

I even fill out applications that ask for race with a check box in the "Asian" or "Japanese" suggestions.

In this country, AMERICA, you only have to be 1% black to be called black.

In my cast, I think of people as humans, cast closed.

Paul

 

[332nd]

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



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?

Oh... My... FSM... Bac, go back & read, for comprehension this time, & try, TRY, to understand it!

If & when you do, come back & try, TRY, to post just a shr... You know what? Just to save time, post what you think is evidence. Is it possible to do that?

 

[headscratcher4]

It's like talking to the anti-Gallileo: "Its still flat!"

 

[Juniversal]

In this country, AMERICA, you only have to be 1% black to be called black.

In my cast, I think of people as humans, cast closed.

Paul

But let's be honest. Taking your comment at face value, anybody that's 1% black will likely look completely white and will identify as such.

 

[Arus808]

No mention of multiple check boxes, or even that the two different forms were available.

Based on the claims of a mythical anonymous man...and how this anonymous man provided no evidence of such form having those check boxes in the first place


Yet, I have the actual form in my possession:

This is the form that is offered to those who wish to show up at the DoH to fill out in person, or take with them to MAIL in (in case they don't want to stand in line):

The above form is the same one on their website in PDF format:

http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf


The form in 2004 looked slightly different (it has a space for a VERIFICATION version, meaning its not certified):
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20...hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf

Then in at least Dec of 2005, the online version updated to the physical paper copy I posted above:
http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20...hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/pdf/birth.pdf



birthers can't even get evidence of their claims, so why should we believe them when I can show that the form has pretty much stayed the same for at least 5 1/2 years? Who are we to believe?

 

[A'isha]

Based on the claims of a mythical anonymous man...and how this anonymous man provided no evidence of such form having those check boxes in the first place


Yet, I have the actual form in my possession:

[qimg]http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/186/hawaiicolbform.jpg[/qimg]

The big giant "request for certified copy" notation on that form (which, as your links to the Wayback Machine show, have been the same as far back as 2005) made me suspicious of something else.

In this WND article, images of the unstamped plain-paper photocopy of the "Danae" certificate are posted, along with a receipt dated September 28, 2010.

On Free Republic, she claimed that when an unnamed "organization" wouldn't accept her "short form" and asked for a copy of her "long form", she didn't know whether they wanted a certified or un-certified copy. So, she says, she ordered and received an un-certified copy, paying (per the claimed receipt), ten dollars for it.

However, the request form she would have had to use doesn't have a space to ask for a non-certified certificate. And the receipt, while it contains a space for "Verification" forms (though a letter of verification is different from an uncertified photocopy), the receipt says what was sent was not a verification form, but a certified form.

Why did she get a receipt for a certified form, when she didn't actually get a certified form (and when the receipt has a space to show when a verification form is sent)?

Not to mention the fact that the uncertified copy on plain white paper, since it has no certification stamp from a registrar, is effectively identical to what would result if she took her original 1969-issued "long form" to a regular photocopier and run off a copy.

Since we know she has that original (she even posted side-by-side pictures), why did she (or so she says) spend ten bucks to get the same thing she could have gotten for ten cents at her local Kinko's?

She does display, in the side-by-side photos, a copy of the "short form", but unless the date on the receipt is altered, the receipt can't be from when she ordered the copy of the "short form" she shows - the form is the pre-2008 "Certification of Live Birth" without the parent's birthplace fields (the identical type of form to the one Obama got), and not a form that she would have received in September of 2010 (which would have looked like Booth's son's short form from April of 2010).

So, the receipt is unlikely to be for the non-certified photocopy of the long form shown, and it can't be for the certified short form shown.

 

[Sabrina]

And how do you know this?

Because I'm IN the military. I know who my orders come from, and it ain't the President. The position is largely ceremonial.

Are you joking?

No I'm not. Look up the regs.

Yeah ... democrats showed a huge interest in that during Filegate.

Doesn't make it right.

Yeah .... democrats have shown a huge concern about our right to privacy and intrusions into our personal lives.

I'm smelling a strong whiff of hypocrisy here, Sabrina.

No, what you smell is the BS you're shoveling.

Again, just because someone did it before doesn't make it right to turn around and do it right back. Not to mention thus far President Obama has shown a heck of a lot more concern for people's privacy than Bush did (illegal wiretapping ring a bell?)

I've been completely honest in this thread. It's your side that has obfuscated and lied here.

There aren't enough laughing dogs....

I've made that perfectly clear. 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, you and Obama could see the wisdom of asking the Hawaiian authorities to release his so-called "long form" birth certificate that they have stated exists and clear this up? Why are you folks so afraid of this issue? What exactly do you believe that information will then prove? Come on; be the first obamaphile to explain your fear of that supposedly innocuous document?

WHY exactly should Obama show it when it will say THE EXACT SAME THING his COLB does; that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital in 1961? The only difference is that the long form has a bit more detail. Big freakin' WHOOP! The details on the long form ARE NOT IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO SATISFYING THE LAW IN THIS INSTANCE!!!! What POSSIBLE value does knowing what doctor presided over Obama's birth bring to ANYONE? In the eyes of the law, precisely NONE! That is why the COLB that Obama HAS provided is sufficient to meet all federal and state laws when it comes to proving his citizenship!

So no, you have NOT made ANYTHING about your insistence on seeing the original document clear AT ALL. Your personal incredulity, nor anyone else's, is not a valid reason to force the State of Hawai'i to violate its own laws to show a document that has EXACTLY the same information (with the addition of minor details that are not important in a legal sense) as the COLB already released. Why not just admit that you cannot stand Obama and would believe in any effort to discredit him?

Let's face it; being American doesn't shield people from being stupid, and birthers are unutterably, monumentally, CATASTROPHICALLY stupid when it comes to this issue. Just because a fraction of a percentage of the population are idiots in this regard doesn't mean everyone else has to bend over backward to satisfy them.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Interestingly, the anonymous March 2011 "long form" certificate that Booth posted an image of in her April 10, 2011 article on the Post and Email had actually appeared before.

In this March 17, 2011 article, also on the Post and Email, about a petition being sent to Hawaiian governor Abercrombie, a rather poor quality white-paper photocopy was shown as an example of the Hawaiin "long form".

They're both images of the same anonymous certificate issued in 1995. However, despite being posted two days after the "March 2011" copy was produced, the March 17 article is not a copy of that supposedly-freshly-issued certificate - the white-paper photocopy has no date and signature from the registrar stamp, despite the section of the certificate having that stamp appearing in the photocopy (you can actually see the bottom edge of the copied certificate).

Either the one certificate was photocopied and then a picture of it later photoshopped, or there should be two identical copies of the certificate, one with the stamp and one without.

If there are two copies, why haven't they been shown side-by-side?

I see what they did. They got a real certified COLB from the state with the stamp and signature on the back low enough so that they could scan the older version in and print it out on the back side of the real certified COLB.

If you were to flip that over you would have the state issued COLB from March.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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

Source? Does there really need to be a source for you to know that "most" is more than 50%?

That I am a registered unaffiliated (i.e., independent) voter is an objective fact.

So you claim.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
It's possible...

I don't care whether it is or not.

Just keep your head in the sand.

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.

I don't know why Obama won't request his so-called "long form" birth certificate be copied and published. It could be something on it. We won't know for sure without seeing it. But as I told Upchurch on another thread, I believe that Obama was born in the US (that's why I'm not a birther). I fervently hope he will give permission to publish a copy of the original "long form" so that this divisive controversy can be brought to an end. Because it's dangerous. But for some reason, Obama doesn't want to do that. There must be another reason he won't. Perhaps he wants the country divided? Perhaps he wants some militia group to latch on to this as a reason to create an incident that can be used as an excuse to further clamp down on the American people? Perhaps he wants to weaken the military's morale? Perhaps he wants this as a whipping boy to smear the whole republican establishment in 2012? But every one of those reasons says something negative about Obama and his supporters.

Again, I'm a registered unaffiliated voter.

So you claim.

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

Yes, we know that people of your *independent* political persuasion think WND is a crank source. You'd rather believe sources that failed to tell the American public about many of the crimes committed by the Clinton administration.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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.

Non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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.

Really? We lost the Vietnam war thanks to morale, both military and civilian. How is the WOT any different?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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.

Well then you need to write more clearly because when you wrote

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Which could be put to rest so simply … by Obama allowing the release of his so-called "long form" birth certificate. Then reasonable people, and I count myself among them, would have no doubts...

Sorry, I still don't believe you. Again, I can't prove it; if such an event could and did occur, then there would be some resolution, but that doesn't seem likely.

we were talking about reasonable people, not just myself.

5. And this one I absolutely guarantee - I'm not wasting any more time engaging with you.

LOL! Bye bye.

 

[A'isha]

LIAR. I have not. I have only argued that "the registrant" (who has a direct and tangible interest) and the President of the US can (if it's a matter of national security).

"Registrant"? Do you mean the registrar, or (based on your "tangible interest" phrasing) do you mean the people on the list in the HRS statute who are permitted to get certified copies (yourself, your family members, etc.)?

I'm assuming you mean the latter, since that's how the statute uses the word. I'm just a little unsure since you say the registrant AND the POTUS, since the distinction in your argument is irrelevant (since Obama is both a registrant per the usage in the statute itself and the President).

The only way your odd distinction above matters is if you think that there is some birth documentation that Obama-the-president can get, but that for some reason Obama-the-registrant cannot.

Anyway, I said that Obama has released the only form of the certificate that the law of Hawaii permits him to receive.

Here's you in post 2524 in this thread:

Here's an interesting analysis of Fukino's statements:

http://usurpador.blogcindario.com/2...ome-fukino-to-nbc-news-regarding-obama-s.html

It also contains this, relevant to your claim above:

It is rather absurd for Mr. Wisch [spokesman for the attorney general's office] to contend that someone could not get a certified copy of their own birth certificate, especially the President of the United States. There is no law in Hawaii that so provides. On the contrary, the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Section 338-13(a) states that the department "shall, upon request, furnish an applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof." Paragraph (c) also provides that copies of birth certificates "may be made by photograph, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health." Hence, Hawaii’s statutes directly contradict what Mr. Wisch is telling the public.

To further prove that Mr. Wisch is wrong and/or inventing information, we have seen recent examples of people who were born in Hawaii obtain with little fanfare a certified copy of their original long-form, hospital generated birth certificate. A friend of Niki Booth--who was born in Japan, spent much of her life in Hawaii and ran for Congress in 2010 from the Second District of Oklahoma—has a friend who obtained a copy of his long-form, Certificate of Live Birth in March 2011. See the story here, http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/04/...ver-for-obama/. Also, October 13, 2010, a “Danae” posted on FreeRepublic a copy of her long-form, birth certificate originally issued in 1969, which she obtained by mail from the Hawaii Department of Health on September 28, 2010 after paying a $10.00 fee. She also posted a copy of the receipt that she got for paying the $10.00 fee.

Gee … looks like there are a lot of claims on this thread that are turning out to be false.

You quote Apuzzo, saying explicitly that people can still request and receive the "long form" from Hawaii, and aren't limited to just the "short form".

Also, your attempt to call me a liar by pretending that when I said "anyone can get a "long form" certificate" that I meant anyone at all and not "anyone can get their own "long form" certificate or the certificates of people that Hawaiian laws say they can" runs right through dishonest and is heading straight towards stupidity. Laughable stupidity.

LIAR. I never made any such claim. Do you ever stop lying ANTPogo?

Except that when I told you that if Booth ever loses her husband or son's original "long forms", that Hawaii will never send her replacement copies, but only the "short form", you responded not with "that's not what the law says", but "State officials will do something different for Obama because he's President and she's not."

Here's the exchange, from your post number 2549:

And if Booth ever loses either her husband's 1949 original, or her son's 1981 original, she will never get them from Hawaii. Hawaii will only ever send her the same form they sent her when she asked for a new copy of her son's certificate, the same "short form" Obama got.

Yeah, but then she's not the President of the US. I rather suspect they would treat him special if he asked nicely.

So, if by "registrant" you meant the registrar above, and not the individual or persons listed in the HRS statute, then right here you're agreeing with me that Booth can't request and receive a "long form" certificate, contrary to the bit from Apuzzo you cite above.

And if you meant by "registrant" the individual or persons listed in the HRS statute who can get certified copies, then right here you're...well, still agreeing with me that Booth can't request and receive a "long form" certificate, contrary to the bit from Apuzzo you cite above.

LIAR.

From that same post, 2549:

Because it's against Hawaiian law. As Hawaiian government officials have told you.

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.

Here's you claiming that Hawaiian state officials are lying when they say that "long form" certificates can no longer be requested and received per state law, and instead saying that (per Apuzzo) "long form" certificates can be requested and received.

And if Booth ever loses either her husband's 1949 original, or her son's 1981 original, she will never get them from Hawaii. Hawaii will only ever send her the same form they sent her when she asked for a new copy of her son's certificate, the same "short form" Obama got.

Yeah, but then she's not the President of the US. I rather suspect they would treat him special if he asked nicely.

Here's you agreeing that Booth wouldn't be able to request and receive copies of her son's or husband's "long form" certificates (despite the law in question saying that she can get certified copies, as the spouse/parent of the people in question), but saying that Obama would be treated "special" by state officials by virtue of his elected office, and so can request and receive his "long form".

(EDIT:And since you've already shown a predilection for blatantly misreading my words, when I say "despite the law in question saying that she can get certified copies, as the spouse/parent of the people in question", I mean that whatever form of certificate you think state law permits Hawaii to issue, whether only short or either short or long, Booth is a person that the law says has a "tangible interest" in obtaining the certificates of her husband and son, and doesn't have to rely on them requesting their own certificates...she can request copies of their certificates all on her own. Do you understand, BAC?)

Needless to say, he (and you) are wrong about what Hawaiian law states, and the Hawaiian attorney general's office is right.

Yet, I'm the one who cited the specific wording of the law that shows you are wrong. The specific wording that you then ignored.

And here's you (still all in the same post as the above two bits), back to claiming that Hawaiian state officials are lying when they say that "long form" certificates can no longer be requested and received per state law, and instead saying that (per Apuzzo) "long form" certificates can be requested and received after all.