Moderated Obama birth certificate CT / SSN CT / Birther discussion

[Robert Prey]

Nope. You keep citing a law that governs who may access vital information. Despite my many attempts to draw your attention to the laws, rules, and regulations governing how that access occurs, you remain uninterested.



If you refuse to read the findings of Hawaii courts on the very subject you're talking about, then you can't be helped. You keep saying that it's possible for Obama to compel the Hawaii authorities to let someone see his original birth certificate. You can't seem to understand that the Hawaii courts have already ruled explicitly on this point.

There is no statutory or regulatory authority the compels the Hawaii Dept. of Health to allow access to its original records. That is a fact.

But the law which I cited provides for exceptions where the State may do exactly that. And you know it.

 

[JayUtah]

From time to time, we are all asked to submit a copy of our birth certificate to verify birth.

FTFY. You do not have your original birth certificate.

We simply go into our files, pull out the copy of our birth certificate, and show it to whomever.

FTFY again. Obama did this. The state and federal election authorities were satisfied, as well as the Republican Party and the Congress.

We don't need to go and ask the state medical center or hospital to find or create a copy. But not Obama. Why? The simple answer is...

Barack Obama didn't need to do anything. His eligibility for office had already been certified before any of the goalpost-shifting occurred.

It's extremely disingenuous of you to cite the President for extraordinarily "needful" behavior when the "need" is generated only by the irrational behavior of the Birthers, yourself included. In fact the candidate Obama followed the normal procedure you outline above. It is only because of your irrational disbelief that anyone has contemplated extraordinary measures. It's audacious and dishonest of you to try to make up new rules that only Barack Obama must follow, then try to tell the world his situation is anomalous because of the made-up rules you're trying to tack onto him.

And that is the plain, simple Occam's Razor truth.

There is no such thing as "Occam's Razor truth." Occam's Razor is a test for simplicity, not a test for truth. Kindly don't throw around words you clearly don't understand.

And it's not truth at all. It is now, and only ever has been, pure speculation from a very small minority of people with an irrational, fanatical aversion to the sitting President. This goes far beyond politics or even forensics. This is just pure hatred <SNIP>. There is zero evidence that the President has forged his birth certificate, and the only scenarios put forward are comical in the extreme. The only actual evidence of forgery in the Birther saga is against the Birthers. You do not have any moral high ground to stand on here, Robert.

 

[Mojo]

So where's the Birth Certificate?

In the Hawaii state archives.

 

[Straw Man]

Funny, but I just don't seem to recall Obama ever claiming to have lost his.

Romney's was created on January 18th 2012. I don't recall him mentioning he'd lost his either.

 

[JayUtah]

But the law which I cited provides for exceptions where the State may do exactly that. And you know it.

No, Robert. Do not try to tell me what I know and don't know.

Hawaii courts have explicitly ruled out your claim. Not by insinuation. Not by omission. They have forcefully and directly said that your interpretation of this law is wrong. Nothing in Hawaii law compels the Department of Health to act as you demand it should. That is a fact.

 

[JayUtah]

Funny, but I just don't seem to recall Obama ever claiming to have lost his.

You're evading the point. No person has his original birth certificate. No person is expected to have his original birth certificate. Barack Obama made a special request to obtain a certified facsimile copy of his, whereas the other candidates made do with the same certified computer-generated abstract that Obama had originally presented, in the optimistic hope that this would silence his critics. And for that matter, most of his critics were silenced. The only ones that remain are those whose claims and disbelief are so patently illogical and irrational that they can be safely ignored.

 

[gnome]

Has Robert answered yet why Obama's political opponents have not used this against him? Hell, Donald Trump accused him baldly and seems not to have been mysteriously disappeared.

 

[LSSBB]

I, on the other hand, have actually had to do that. I lost my social security card, and when I was hired at my currently place of employment in 2001, I was required to obtain a replacement card. In order to get that replacement card, I needed my birth certificate...which I did not take with me when I moved out of my parents' house, and which they were unable to locate when I asked (since my parents had moved several times since then and probably lost it somewhere along the line). So I was forced to ask the state where I was born to send me a replacement 2001-generated birth certificate, so I could obtain a replacement 2001-generated social security card.

This is not only not unusual for a whole lot of Americans, it's so common that states (such as Hawaii) have long-established procedures to make it relatively simple and easy for Americans to obtain replacement birth certificates when they need them.

So no, the fact that Obama had to do the same thing I had to do once does not in any way, shape, or form mean he's an impostor who never had a birth certificate.

I had to get duplicates for both my boys, both born in Hawaii. My ex wouldn't cough them up and I had custody and had to enroll them.

Records like this go missing for all sorts of reasons. It's a pretty desperate straw for RP to grasp at.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert. Do not try to tell me what I know and don't know.

Hawaii courts have explicitly ruled out your claim. Not by insinuation. Not by omission. They have forcefully and directly said that your interpretation of this law is wrong. Nothing in Hawaii law compels the Department of Health to act as you demand it should. That is a fact.

"Compels"??? That's your interpolation. The law allows for the viewing of the BC under the cited statute, but you refuse to admit it.

 

[Mudcat]

Funny, but I just don't seem to recall Obama ever claiming to have lost his.

That's because he didn't, so far as I know. He produced his BC but that wasn't good enough for the Birthers so he went above and beyond to request a copy of his LFBC. Obama is a far better man than I. I'd have told the whole lot to grow the hell up and get a clue.

 

[Mojo]

From time to time, we are all asked to submit a birth certificate to verify birth. It may be for employment, school entrance, apply for a new SS card, or Driver's license. But from time to time, it is asked from most of us. For me, and for most people, it's very simple. We simply go into our files, pull out the birth certificate, and show it to whomever. We don't need to go and ask the state medical center or hospital to find or create a copy. But not Obama. Why? The simple answer is, because he does not have a Birth Certificate. At least, not from Hawaii. And that is the plain, simple Occam's Razor truth. The man is an impostor from the very day one of his birth.

Incidentally, this doesn't really fit with the rest of your conspiracy theory. The conspiracy must have started at the time of Obama's birth in order to have placed the newspaper announcement of the birth. If, as you claim, "the man [was] an imposter from the very day one of his birth" and everyone has an original birth certificate, then why did the conspirators not simply obtain a contemporary birth certificate?

 

[LogicallyYours]

From time to time, we are all asked to submit a birth certificate to verify birth. It may be for employment, school entrance, apply for a new SS card, or Driver's license. But from time to time, it is asked from most of us. For me, and for most people, it's very simple. We simply go into our files, pull out the birth certificate, and show it to whomever. We don't need to go and ask the state medical center or hospital to find or create a copy. But not Obama. Why? The simple answer is, because he does not have a Birth Certificate. At least, not from Hawaii. And that is the plain, simple Occam's Razor truth. The man is an impostor from the very day one of his birth.

Yeah, actually....NO.

What you have is a Copy of the original birth certificate which resides in the city or town of your birth.

 

[JayUtah]

"Compels"??? That's your interpolation.

No, it's yours. You're saying that regardless of the copious regulatory documentation about how vital information is to be obtained, safeguarded, divulged, copied, or otherwise shared -- which you've obviously never read and probably don't even know exists -- Barack Obama can simply write a letter naming a delegate and ordering the Hawaii Dept. of Health to show to that delegate his original birth certificate (not just a certified copy of the record), and that the Director of Health would be powerless to stop that delegate from marching into the DOH vaults.

You are exactly telling us that the subject of a vital record can compel the Director of Health to make available upon demand the original paper birth certificate, when it is his legal obligation and regulatory duty to do otherwise. You say that Obama's "unwillingness" to do this is evidence of a coverup. I am reasonably confident that I am not misrepresenting your claim.

No, Robert. You are simply making up new rules and pretending that they have some sort of legal force. I'm citing the actual rules the DOH uses, not made-up Birther rules.

The law allows for the viewing of the BC under the cited statute, but you refuse to admit it.

Asked and answered repeatedly.

The law names several ways in which vital information may conceivably be conveyed, and criminalizes all of them unless certain conditions are met. You cherry-pick only from the portion of the law that identifies the conditions. You omit the portion of the law that endows the Hawaii Dept. of Health with the executive authority to regulate in what manner vital information may be divulged or conveyed, and imposes upon that department the legal obligation to safeguard the integrity of those records and enforce the restrictions that govern access to vital information under the law.

As previously discussed (and ignored by you), if the law did not name viewing the original certificate as a way in which vital information may be conveyed, then there would be a vast hole in the reach of the law to punish those who inappropriately view the information. That mere mention does not affirmatively create an obligation for the executive branch to allow such access upon demand. It does not "allow" anything in the sense of mandating, sanctioning, or licensing an activity; it merely names it as one of many ways you can break this law. I went into some detail on the subject, and you dismissed it with one of your infamous single-sentence brush-offs. You did, however, quote the post, so it's reasonable to conclude you are well aware you're presenting debunked material de novo without attempting to rehabilitate it.

The Hawaii courts have explicitly ruled that the Hawaii Dept. of Health has no obligation under the law you cite to allow access to the original birth certificate, even if the requestor is authorized under the law to receive vital information. The requestor is entitled only to a certified copy under the law. That is res judicata and no amount of handwaving from you changes that fact.

You desperately want to portray me as stubborn on this point. I am not. I am simply uninterested in your personal homegrown interpretation of this law when the Hawaii judiciary has provided me instead with an authoritative and legally binding interpretation of it, for exactly the scenario you name. Robert Prey is not the official interpreter of the meaning of Hawaii law and regulation, and your opinion is simply irrelevant.

Now kindly stop trying to tell everyone I secretly know you're right, while strenuously ignoring all the ways in which I'm telling you that you're wrong.

 

[EventHorizon]

Wait, I have one question for Robert. Do you think that your birth certificate that you have on file is your original birth certificate?

 

[Hans]

Wait, I have one question for Robert. Do you think that your birth certificate that you have on file is your original birth certificate?

The follow on question must be then is how he got it but if he notes his original is in a state vault somewhere why doesn't he demonstrate how he thinks the law works?

He should authorize someone to go see and handle his original held by the state - taped of course

 

[Robert Prey]

No, it's yours. You're saying that regardless of the copious regulatory documentation about how vital information is to be obtained, safeguarded, divulged, copied, or otherwise shared -- which you've obviously never read and probably don't even know exists -- Barack Obama can simply write a letter naming a delegate and ordering the Hawaii Dept. of Health to show to that delegate his original birth certificate (not just a certified copy of the record), and that the Director of Health would be powerless to stop that delegate from marching into the DOH vaults.

You are exactly telling us that the subject of a vital record can compel the Director of Health to make available upon demand the original paper birth certificate, when it is his legal obligation and regulatory duty to do otherwise. You say that Obama's "unwillingness" to do this is evidence of a coverup. I am reasonably confident that I am not misrepresenting your claim.

No, Robert. You are simply making up new rules and pretending that they have some sort of legal force. I'm citing the actual rules the DOH uses, not made-up Birther rules.



Asked and answered repeatedly.

The law names several ways in which vital information may conceivably be conveyed, and criminalizes all of them unless certain conditions are met. You cherry-pick only from the portion of the law that identifies the conditions. You omit the portion of the law that endows the Hawaii Dept. of Health with the executive authority to regulate in what manner vital information may be divulged or conveyed, and imposes upon that department the legal obligation to safeguard the integrity of those records and enforce the restrictions that govern access to vital information under the law.

As previously discussed (and ignored by you), if the law did not name viewing the original certificate as a way in which vital information may be conveyed, then there would be a vast hole in the reach of the law to punish those who inappropriately view the information. That mere mention does not affirmatively create an obligation for the executive branch to allow such access upon demand. It does not "allow" anything in the sense of mandating, sanctioning, or licensing an activity; it merely names it as one of many ways you can break this law. I went into some detail on the subject, and you dismissed it with one of your infamous single-sentence brush-offs. You did, however, quote the post, so it's reasonable to conclude you are well aware you're presenting debunked material de novo without attempting to rehabilitate it.

The Hawaii courts have explicitly ruled that the Hawaii Dept. of Health has no obligation under the law you cite to allow access to the original birth certificate, even if the requestor is authorized under the law to receive vital information. The requestor is entitled only to a certified copy under the law. That is res judicata and no amount of handwaving from you changes that fact.

You desperately want to portray me as stubborn on this point. I am not. I am simply uninterested in your personal homegrown interpretation of this law when the Hawaii judiciary has provided me instead with an authoritative and legally binding interpretation of it, for exactly the scenario you name. Robert Prey is not the official interpreter of the meaning of Hawaii law and regulation, and your opinion is simply irrelevant.

Now kindly stop trying to tell everyone I secretly know you're right, while strenuously ignoring all the ways in which I'm telling you that you're wrong.

Your original contention was that Hawaii was prohibited from allowing anyone to view an original BC. That remains false despite your protestations and sudden interpolation of the word "compels".

"A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant" may view the BC. Thus, Ambercrombie could have viewed the BC (presuming it existed) with the permission of Obama.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Wait, I have one question for Robert. Do you think that your birth certificate that you have on file is your original birth certificate?

Or, not wanting to force a dichtomy, if the one held by your state authority is the original.

 

[JayUtah]

Your original contention was that Hawaii was prohibited from allowing anyone to view an original BC.

It is still my contention that Hawaii prohibits viewing original birth certificates. All you will ever get is a certified copy. But it's becoming apparent that you don't know what an "original birth certificate" is. You seem to think you possess yours, for example. You almost certainly do not; you hold a certified copy of it.

That remains false despite your protestations and sudden interpolation of the word "compels".

No, it remains true. No person can demand to see an original birth certificate in Hawaii. All you can see is a certified copy, no better than what Obama has already obtained and supplied to the world, and which has been accepted as the legally acceptable proof of birth by everyone except the last Birther hold outs.

I am not "suddenly" invoking the concept of compulsion. You are the one trying to tell us wrongly for months that the registrant or his agent may compel the Dept. of Health to release vital information in a certain desired form (i.e., by allowing access to the original). The law simply does not provide for that. Your strained interpretation of one cherry-picked mention-in-passing is explicitly contradicted in Hawaii law and regulation. Explicitly.

I'm not interpolating my view into this. I'm quoting to you what the Hawaii courts -- the official interpreters of Hawaii law -- have said regarding your exact proposal. You couldn't me more wrong than if the Hawaii judge had said, "You, Robert Prey, are misinterpreting the law."

"A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant" may view the BC.

No. First, that is not how the law reads. Don't reword laws; they're written carefully to convey a precise meaning. Second, a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant is allowed to obtain vital information from the Hawaii DOH on that person. Neither the registrant nor the delegate gets to choose the form in which that information appears.

You continue to conflate two concepts. I will explain it again a third time, because you're just not getting it.

There is the issue of who may obtain vital information. The law you cite identifies who may do that. The registrant may designate someone in writing to receive that information. Obama could designate the governor of Hawaii as someone acting on his behalf for that purpose.

But then there is the separate issue of how (i.e., in what form) that vital information may be released by the Dept. of Health to anyone who is authorized to receive it. Since at least 1962 (and likely earlier), the only form in which someone may receive that information is via a certified copy. Since the mid-1990s, the only copy you were ordinarily entitled to receive was a computer printout certified to contain the same information as the paper original -- exactly what Romney gave as his birth certificate.

Under no circumstances will that information be released by allowing someone to go back into the Dept. of Health vaults, pull out the book containing the bound paper originals, and thumb through them until he's looking at the paper original. Under no circumstances.

There is no provision under Hawaii law for anyone to see his original birth certificate. We don't have to quibble what the word "may" means; the law explicitly reads contrary to your belief, elsewhere by allowing Dept. of Health to control access as it sees fit. Birthers never read that part of the law or the regulations made pursuant to it.

You need to wrap your mind around the concept that what you proposed was already tried. The person who tried it then took the Hawaii Dept. of Health to court trying to compel them to let him see an original birth certificate. He was qualified under the law, being the registrant's natural sibling. He asked to see the paper original, and was denied. He was given only a computerized abstract, duly certified to be a true copy. The court ruled explicitly that this was all the law entitled him to have, and further ruled explicitly that the Dept. of Health was under no obligation to provide access to paper originals.

 

[Robert Prey]

There is no provision under Hawaii law for anyone to see his original birth certificate. We don't have to quibble what the word "may" means; the law explicitly reads contrary to your belief, elsewhere by allowing Dept. of Health to control access as it sees fit. Birthers never read that part of the law or the regulations made pursuant to it.

"A person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant" (may view the birth certificate) -- Hawaii law. Deal with it.

 

[Hans]

He should authorize someone to go see and handle his original held by the state - taped of course

So Bob why would you refuse to do this? Wouldn't this prove your case?