Cataholic: Link (new window)

It is the actual form filled out by the hospital/physician and transmitted to the registrar. As you can see, Obama's would contain more information, such as name of the hospital, age of parents, and the name of the attending physician.

Reasonable people have already concluded that this is a non-story. Releasing a copy of what is likely a hand-written document will not change the birfers' minds one bit.

badhatharry: Yes. And he shouldn't release it if he doesn't want to. But the kool-aid drinkers are saying it doesn't exist or that Hawaii Doh wont give him a copy or that it would be illegal for Obama to show it to anyone.

Close. What we're ACTUALLY saying is that the whole goddamn thing is an exercise in futility, stupidity and circular logic.

Cataholic: cameroncrazy1984: how is that different from a COLB?

A Certificate of Live Birth would look something like this:

Link (new window)

It is the actual form filled out by the hospital/physician and transmitted to the registrar. As you can see, Obama's would contain more information, such as name of the hospital, age of parents, and the name of the attending physician.

None of which has to be released to the public, hence why Hawaii (and California) will not release anything but the certificate like Obama released.

Both my brother and I have copies of our original birth certificates from CA. Neither can be used now. We both had to get certificates to apply for passports. Identity theft is very real, and this is one way to keep that information (like what hospital you were born in) out of crazy peoples hands.

Neither I nor Obama have to show you anything but the certificate, no matter how hard you whine.

French Rage: Random question about the supposed video of his grandma saying she saw him born in Kenya, are there any actual copies of this video for people to view, or like the "whitey" video has this only been seen by everyone's mother's cousin's coworker?

The referenced recording is only of audio, as it is a recording of a telephone conversation. The statement that the recording features President Obama's grandmother claiming to have witnessed her aforementioned grandson's birth in Kenya is a misrepresentation, however. In actuality, the recording features the translator for President Obama's grandmother misunderstanding Mrs. Obama's statement regarding the location of her grandson's birth. Typically only a truncated version of this recording, which omits the subsequent correction by the translator who clarifies that Mrs. Obama actually stated that her grandson was in fact born in "America" and then, more specifically, in Hawaii, is provided. The individual or individuals who knowingly edited the recording to omit this correction so as to misrepresent the statement of President Obama's grandmother therefore engaged in willful fraud as a means of supporting the claim that President Obama is not a "natural born" United States citizen. The complete, unabridged, recording in WMA format may be heard here.

zabadu: SkinnyHead: jso2897: There's only one original. How does one "disseminate" a single document?

The clerk photocopies the original document. The clerk then stamps and signs a certification, which makes it a certified copy of the original. The certified copy is then given to the media and posted on the internet.

What part of INSPECT do you not understand? They do not make copies of birth certs in Hawaii. You get the new cert or nothing.

Thick as a board you are.

What about HRS §92F-23:

Access to personal record; initial procedure. Upon the request of an individual to gain access to the individual's personal record, an agency shall permit the individual to review the record and have a copy made within ten working days following the date of receipt of the request by the agency unless the personal record requested is exempted under section 92F-22. The ten-day period may be extended for an additional twenty working days if the agency provides to the individual, within the initial ten working days, a written explanation of unusual circumstances causing the delay.

SharkInfested: God damn it! I spent so much time reading the crazies drivel that I didn't realise it was S.A.M. First time I've fallen for it!

I got him colored orange, so I never missed it.

/Cowherd was a red herring. I thought it was gonna be ESPN hosts.

zabadu: None of which has to be released to the public, hence why Hawaii (and California) will not release anything but the certificate like Obama released.

Both my brother and I have copies of our original birth certificates from CA. Neither can be used now. We both had to get certificates to apply for passports. Identity theft is very real, and this is one way to keep that information (like what hospital you were born in) out of crazy peoples hands.

Neither I nor Obama have to show you anything but the certificate, no matter how hard you whine.


I think it's fantastic that we've at least moved from "he can't get a copy of it," to "well..he can, but he shouldn't have to." Personally, I believe the Registrar and the Governor when they say they've seen it and it's legit. They have too much to lose by lying about such a thing.

badhatharry: cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: jso2897: There's only one original. How does one "disseminate" a single document?

The clerk photocopies the original document. The clerk then stamps and signs a certification, which makes it a certified copy of the original. The certified copy is then given to the media and posted on the internet.

how is that different from a COLB?

You people are dense.
The "original" birth certificate is the one that was issued when he was born. This is the document his mom had in a file cabinet to show to anyone who needed it. It was probably hand written. There is still a copy of it on file in Hawaii DoH vital statistics.

In later years, if you needed a replacement, they issued a computer printout of a CoLB, which is what was posted online.

HE CAN SHOW IT TO ANYONE HE WANTS TO!

The Hawaii Doh cannot issue it to anyone except Obama. How stupid are you people to think it is illegal to show your birthcertificate to anyone!

Okay, put your birth certificate on the internet and show us. No matter what you show, I'll prove it isn't enough. We'll be shipping you back to North Korea because that's where I think you were born.

You have to prove to me you weren't born in North Korea. Any proof you give will of course be false, so I'll still have you shipped to North Korea.

You can point to your parents, but obviously, they must be North Korean as well, so I'll ship you to North Korea.

Every regulatory body will say you were born here, but that isn't enough proof, so off to North Korea.

The Supreme Court will say that you are American, but that isn't proof enough so you will get shipped to North Korea.

Do you get where I'm coming from yet?

SkinnyHead: What about HRS §92F-23:

92F-22(5) nullifies that in the face of 338:18.

§92F-22 Exemptions and limitations on individual access. An agency is not required by this part to grant an individual access to personal records, or information in such records:

...

(5) Required to be withheld from the individual to whom it pertains by statute or judicial decision or authorized to be so withheld by constitutional or statutory privilege. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §3]

OF course, we're getting further and further from the truth of the matter.

The statement of the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, backed by the governor of Hawaii, is not good enough for you. Therefore, any document that would come from such an agency under their jurisdiction is immediately suspect.

If the DoH statement isn't enough, why the fark would any document to originate from the DoH be enough?

Cataholic: cameroncrazy1984: how is that different from a COLB?

A Certificate of Live Birth would look something like this:

Link (new window)

It is the actual form filled out by the hospital/physician and transmitted to the registrar. As you can see, Obama's would contain more information, such as name of the hospital, age of parents, and the name of the attending physician.

Sorry, that one has been altered with black marks, so it's invalid.

SkinnyHead: zabadu: SkinnyHead: jso2897: There's only one original. How does one "disseminate" a single document?

The clerk photocopies the original document. The clerk then stamps and signs a certification, which makes it a certified copy of the original. The certified copy is then given to the media and posted on the internet.

What part of INSPECT do you not understand? They do not make copies of birth certs in Hawaii. You get the new cert or nothing.

Thick as a board you are.

What about HRS §92F-23: Access to personal record; initial procedure. Upon the request of an individual to gain access to the individual's personal record, an agency shall permit the individual to review the record and have a copy made within ten working days following the date of receipt of the request by the agency unless the personal record requested is exempted under section 92F-22. The ten-day period may be extended for an additional twenty working days if the agency provides to the individual, within the initial ten working days, a written explanation of unusual circumstances causing the delay.

OK, I'll bite agian - I'm feeling charitable. Exactly how is the Prez supposed to exercise the rather limited rights he has here to prove anything to the birthers? He flys to Hawaii, goes to the Dept. of records, and is allowed to examine his B.C. The law does not specify whether he can bring a witness, but that doesn't matter, since the birthers wouldn't accept anybody's testimony anyway. So then, they give him a COPY, and he leaves. What then? He puts it on the internet, and all the birthers say "Oh, well - that's legit. Glad he cleared that up."?
I don't think so.
The man has important things to do. Catering to loons is not among them.

SkinnyHead: zabadu: SkinnyHead: jso2897: There's only one original. How does one "disseminate" a single document?

The clerk photocopies the original document. The clerk then stamps and signs a certification, which makes it a certified copy of the original. The certified copy is then given to the media and posted on the internet.

What part of INSPECT do you not understand? They do not make copies of birth certs in Hawaii. You get the new cert or nothing.

Thick as a board you are.

What about HRS §92F-23: Access to personal record; initial procedure. Upon the request of an individual to gain access to the individual's personal record, an agency shall permit the individual to review the record and have a copy made within ten working days following the date of receipt of the request by the agency unless the personal record requested is exempted under section 92F-22. The ten-day period may be extended for an additional twenty working days if the agency provides to the individual, within the initial ten working days, a written explanation of unusual circumstances causing the delay.

[§92F-17] Criminal penalties. (a) An officer or employee of an agency who intentionally discloses or provides a copy of a government record, or any confidential information explicitly described by specific confidentiality statutes, to any person or agency with actual knowledge that disclosure is prohibited, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, unless a greater penalty is otherwise provided for by law.

(b) A person who intentionally gains access to or obtains a copy of a government record by false pretense, bribery, or theft, with actual knowledge that access is prohibited, or who intentionally obtains any confidential information by false pretense, bribery, or theft, with actual knowledge that it is prohibited [by] a confidentiality statute, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1]

Whether Obama can obtain a copy or not, he does not have to release it.

TheMadChaosopher: Under Hawaiian law, it is possible (both legally and illegally) for a person to have been born out of state, yet have a birth certificate on file in the Department of Health.

A. From Hawaii's official Department of Health, Vital Records webpage: "Amended certificates of birth may be prepared and filed with the Department of Health, as provided by law, for 1) a person born in Hawaii who already has a birth certificate filed with the Department of Health or 2) a person born in a foreign country" (applies to adopted children).

B. A parent may register an in-state birth in lieu of certification by a hospital of birth under HRS 338-5.

C. Hawaiian law expressly provides for registration of out-of-state births under HRS 338-17.8. A foreign birth presumably would have been recorded by the American consular of the country of birth, and presumably that would be reflected on the Hawaiian birth certificate.


However, as I am sure many many people have pointed out in the interim period between your original post and this rebuttal, you cannot have a false place of birth listed on a Hawaiian birth certificate. It is a Hawaiian form in the Hawaiian files, but it lists your original place of birth accurately. Obama's place of birth is listed as Hawaii. This could not have been falsified.

Birthers insist on a conspiracy that not only involves a great deal of effort, but makes no sense: it requires his mother or attending physician to know that in the far future, someday, Barack Hussein Superallah Obama would run for President. This coming at a time before the Civil Rights Act had even been passed. Were they psychic?

My logic professor (yes, I took logic. Bite me.) said that conspiracy theories are ultimately impenetrable, and that it's pointless to argue with them, just like it's pointless to argue with someone who thinks that the light in the fridge is turned on and off by a little man who lives in the crisper.

See, you start by assuming that the little man is good at hiding, and that powerful forces -- uh, say, Big Freon -- don't want you to know how fridges actually work.

So -- there's a little man. Never saw him? He hides. Doesn't show up in X-rays? He's VERY. GOOD. AT. HIDING. No records of such a little man, or little men, existing? Big Freon destroyed them. Scientists explain it's impossible? Scientists in thrall to grants from Big Freon. It's illogical? Your "logic" is based on your prejudices. He'd get cold? He has a coat.

And so on.

SkinnyHead: The clerk photocopies the original document. The clerk then stamps and signs a certification, which makes it a certified copy of the original. The certified copy is then given to the media and posted on the internet.

So when are you going to post proof of your GED in Law?

/you're a fake

For the rightwing nutjobs there are things to believe and things to disbelieve. For the things to believe no proof is necessary and for the things to disbelieve no amount proof is ever sufficient to show otherwise. It's a faith-based existence.

I am having trouble with this thread... I am getting this massive impression that 10% of the posts here are relevant and needed.... and the other 9/10 posts are simply trolls trolling trolls who are being trolled.

It really seems that way.

/Fark could not possibly actually have this many idiots online?
//Could it?

Look, you can get away with stealing elections in this country so no way is some tediously thin claim about paperwork going to keep a guy out of office.

Ken at Popehat: My logic professor (yes, I took logic. Bite me.) said that conspiracy theories are ultimately impenetrable, and that it's pointless to argue with them, just like it's pointless to argue with someone who thinks that the light in the fridge is turned on and off by a little man who lives in the crisper.

See, you start by assuming that the little man is good at hiding, and that powerful forces -- uh, say, Big Freon -- don't want you to know how fridges actually work.

So -- there's a little man. Never saw him? He hides. Doesn't show up in X-rays? He's VERY. GOOD. AT. HIDING. No records of such a little man, or little men, existing? Big Freon destroyed them. Scientists explain it's impossible? Scientists in thrall to grants from Big Freon. It's illogical? Your "logic" is based on your prejudices. He'd get cold? He has a coat.

And so on.

Fascinating!

Ken at Popehat: My logic professor (yes, I took logic. Bite me.) said that conspiracy theories are ultimately impenetrable, and that it's pointless to argue with them, just like it's pointless to argue with someone who thinks that the light in the fridge is turned on and off by a little man who lives in the crisper.

See, you start by assuming that the little man is good at hiding, and that powerful forces -- uh, say, Big Freon -- don't want you to know how fridges actually work.

So -- there's a little man. Never saw him? He hides. Doesn't show up in X-rays? He's VERY. GOOD. AT. HIDING. No records of such a little man, or little men, existing? Big Freon destroyed them. Scientists explain it's impossible? Scientists in thrall to grants from Big Freon. It's illogical? Your "logic" is based on your prejudices. He'd get cold? He has a coat.

And so on.

Conspiracy theories are goalpost-moving machines.

/Fark could not possibly actually have this many idiots online?
//Could it?


Well, I'm still here

I have yet to see anyone in the birther debate give a clear answer to a simple question: if Obama isn't eligible to be President, then why is he?

You can talk about Hawaii laws and certificates of live birth and the kerning and you've seen plenty of shops in your time all day long. But the Electoral College voted, he was sworn in, and he's now President. The state of Hawaii is fine with it, the Electoral College is fine with, and in fact everyone remotely connected to the official business of putting a President in office is fine with it.

What is this, Poke'mon? He GOT TO 'EM ALL?

Dimensio: The complete, unabridged, recording in WMA format may be heard here.

WMA?!?!!?!?!one!1 Isn't that one of those high-falutin' didgi-tile illegal commie MP3 thingys? How can we trust an obvious forgery in a format supported by Ultra-Leftist Bill Gates?

Why can't they just post the original analog source tape on the interwebz so we can put an end to this once and for all??

SkinnyHead: why doesn't Obama just authorize release of that document?

It's a sealed document that only the DOH of Hawaii has access to; any request from Obama would result in him just being sent another COLB. This was explained to you many times yesterday.

printboy: Argh2: printboy: I want to be a liberal..../i>

We don't want you, you're too much of a dick.


And I care....because????

It would make you more liberal. You want to be one so bad.
BTW- Go to Hell with your cut and paste crap. It's solid proof you can't think for yourself.

opensorcerer: I have yet to see anyone in the birther debate give a clear answer to a simple question: if Obama isn't eligible to be President, then why is he?

You can talk about Hawaii laws and certificates of live birth and the kerning and you've seen plenty of shops in your time all day long. But the Electoral College voted, he was sworn in, and he's now President. The state of Hawaii is fine with it, the Electoral College is fine with, and in fact everyone remotely connected to the official business of putting a President in office is fine with it.

What is this, Poke'mon? He GOT TO 'EM ALL?

It assumes a systematic failure of five dozen different places where such a thing would be checked, and the compromise and duplicity of several people involved, especially the people would are needed to "confirm" Obama's status.

Murkanen: SkinnyHead: why doesn't Obama just authorize release of that document?

It's a sealed document that only the DOH of Hawaii has access to; any request from Obama would result in him just being sent another COLB. This was explained to you many times yesterday.

And the day before that, and the day before that, and the weeks before that, and the months before that...

Birthers sure make good poster boys for the GOP. Be sure to wave lots of signs about it come '12.

RadicalMiddle: printboy: Argh2: printboy: I want to be a liberal..../i>

We don't want you, you're too much of a dick.


And I care....because????

It would make you more liberal. You want to be one so bad.
BTW- Go to Hell with your cut and paste crap. It's solid proof you can't think for yourself.



I don't cut and Past

It would make you more liberal. You want to be one so bad.
BTW- Go to Hell with your cut and paste crap. It's solid proof you can't think for yourself.

I don't cut and Past


It would make you more liberal. You want to be one so bad.
BTW- Go to Hell with your cut and paste crap. It's solid proof you can't think for yourself.

I don't cut and Past

Ken at Popehat: My logic professor (yes, I took logic. Bite me.) said that conspiracy theories are ultimately impenetrable, and that it's pointless to argue with them, just like it's pointless to argue with someone who thinks that the light in the fridge is turned on and off by a little man who lives in the crisper.

See, you start by assuming that the little man is good at hiding, and that powerful forces -- uh, say, Big Freon -- don't want you to know how fridges actually work.

So -- there's a little man. Never saw him? He hides. Doesn't show up in X-rays? He's VERY. GOOD. AT. HIDING. No records of such a little man, or little men, existing? Big Freon destroyed them. Scientists explain it's impossible? Scientists in thrall to grants from Big Freon. It's illogical? Your "logic" is based on your prejudices. He'd get cold? He has a coat.

And so on.

Which is the "conspiracy" theory:

1.That Obama was not born in Hawaii.
2.That Obama has not released his original birth certificate.

printboy: And I care....because????

You're a liberal?

opensorcerer: I have yet to see anyone in the birther debate give a clear answer to a simple question: if Obama isn't eligible to be President, then why is he?

You can talk about Hawaii laws and certificates of live birth and the kerning and you've seen plenty of shops in your time all day long. But the Electoral College voted, he was sworn in, and he's now President. The state of Hawaii is fine with it, the Electoral College is fine with, and in fact everyone remotely connected to the official business of putting a President in office is fine with it.

What is this, Poke'mon? He GOT TO 'EM ALL?

Because! Grassy knoll!! CIA!!

Bloody William: 92F-22(5) nullifies that in the face of 338:18.

§92F-22 Exemptions and limitations on individual access. An agency is not required by this part to grant an individual access to personal records, or information in such records:

...

(5) Required to be withheld from the individual to whom it pertains by statute or judicial decision or authorized to be so withheld by constitutional or statutory privilege. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §3]

OF course, we're getting further and further from the truth of the matter.

338:18 does not require that an original birth certificate "be withheld from the individual to whom it pertains."

The statement of the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, backed by the governor of Hawaii, is not good enough for you. Therefore, any document that would come from such an agency under their jurisdiction is immediately suspect.

The DOH statement explained why a copy of the birth certificate cannot be released to third parties who lack a direct and tangible interest in it. It did not purport to say that if Obama gets a certified copy of his own birth certificate, he can't show it to anyone. That would be absurd.

Befuddled: printboy: And I care....because????

You're a liberal?

For $19.95 I can be just about anything !!!!

Donald_McRonald: Cataholic: Link (new window)

It is the actual form filled out by the hospital/physician and transmitted to the registrar. As you can see, Obama's would contain more information, such as name of the hospital, age of parents, and the name of the attending physician.

Reasonable people have already concluded that this is a non-story. Releasing a copy of what is likely a hand-written document will not change the birfers' minds one bit.

:::sigh::::

Nirthers: "Where's the birth certificate?"

Obama's people: "Here's a certificate of Live Birth" in other words, not a certified copy of the original that could easily be made by photocopying the original on file and certifying it with a government's Notary stamp.

Nirthers: "That's not an actual birth certificate"

Obama's people: "It's a legal document, suck it." (avoiding the fact that it is not, in fact, the actual birth certificate or a copy thereof)

Nirthers: ...


and so on and so on.

So far, the only arguments "against" what I've stated are that it's a legal document... so what? Legal documents can't be based on mistaken data? It's a computer-generated certificate. Did a clerk locate the original birth certificate on site, then issue the certificate, or did they look up an SSN on a computer an hit "Print" to generate a standard CoLB? Likely the later, then they stamped it, you know, to certify that it came from the state's official offices.

Let's see:

Did Obama publish his original birth certificate online?

No.

Did Obama publish a certified copy of his original birth certificate online?

No.

Would such an act satisfy the nirthers?

Answering that one is a straw man, but I see many of you defending Obama's actions using this one.

I say that publishing a certified copy of his original birth certificate would put the nirthers firmly in the corner, but dismissing people who have their doubts right now is idiocy, and downright dishonest.

You dismiss the simple logic presented based on "it's a legal document!" which is purely an absurd position, since it does not speak to the actual matter at hand, nor does that "legal document" actually prove anything. That legal document could easily have been produced based on falsified information. Nothing could prevent a low level clerk from adding a CoLB record to the state databases just before printing the certificate. It's an electronic record.... I've worked on mainframes, and it's not hard to insert raw data into a system like that. I doubt there is much more concern beyond protecting read access due to Privacy issues. Clerks who access the data also have access to modify and insert data - it's part of their job.

Bloody William: If the DoH statement isn't enough, why the fark would any document to originate from the DoH be enough?

Why not a, you know, actual copy of the original birth certificate, instead of a certification that a record exists in a database? Is this really hard for you people to understand, or are you just being purposely obtuse?

badhatharry:
Which is the "conspiracy" theory:

1.That Obama was not born in Hawaii.
2.That Obama has not released his sent the military to Hawaii in order to enact change of their Vital Records laws in order to allow the release of the original birth certificate.

/edited for accuracy

SkinnyHead: The DOH statement explained why a copy of the birth certificate cannot be released to third parties who lack a direct and tangible interest in it. It did not purport to say that if Obama gets a certified copy of his own birth certificate, he can't show it to anyone. That would be absurd.

You know what? It's been over 500 posts. fark it. Your problems with this will never be satisfied, and they will also never be respected by the president, the government, or the vast, vast majority of Americans. This bullshiat doesn't matter. Your speculation and whining doesn't matter. And whatever I say, doesn't matter.

Barack Obama is president. He is recognized as president in the eyes of the law, and he is recognized as a natural-born citizen in the eyes of the law. Nothing you say or do will change that. Obama will remain president for the next 3 1/2 years, and possibly for the next 7 1/2 years. And there is not a single thing the birthers can do to change that.

SkinnyHead: Bloody William: 92F-22(5) nullifies that in the face of 338:18.

§92F-22 Exemptions and limitations on individual access. An agency is not required by this part to grant an individual access to personal records, or information in such records:

...

(5) Required to be withheld from the individual to whom it pertains by statute or judicial decision or authorized to be so withheld by constitutional or statutory privilege. [L 1988, c 262, pt of §1; am L 1993, c 250, §3]

OF course, we're getting further and further from the truth of the matter.

338:18 does not require that an original birth certificate "be withheld from the individual to whom it pertains."

The statement of the director of the Hawaii Department of Health, backed by the governor of Hawaii, is not good enough for you. Therefore, any document that would come from such an agency under their jurisdiction is immediately suspect.

The DOH statement explained why a copy of the birth certificate cannot be released to third parties who lack a direct and tangible interest in it. It did not purport to say that if Obama gets a certified copy of his own birth certificate, he can't show it to anyone. That would be absurd.

Go back and read the thread. That argument has been addressed and answered.

The whole point is Obama doesn't have to show anyone anything but the certificate already presented. Plus, the statute stating that dissemination of confidential documents is expressly against the law in Hawaii.

So there.

opensorcerer: I have yet to see anyone in the birther debate give a clear answer to a simple question: if Obama isn't eligible to be President, then why is he?

You can talk about Hawaii laws and certificates of live birth and the kerning and you've seen plenty of shops in your time all day long. But the Electoral College voted, he was sworn in, and he's now President. The state of Hawaii is fine with it, the Electoral College is fine with, and in fact everyone remotely connected to the official business of putting a President in office is fine with it.

What is this, Poke'mon? He GOT TO 'EM ALL?

My problem is with the birthers and the Obamabots. Both have preconceived ideas about what is true and are not able to see reality.

Hunter_S_Thompson: WMA?!?!!?!?!one!1 Isn't that one of those high-falutin' didgi-tile illegal commie MP3 thingys? How can we trust an obvious forgery in a format supported by Ultra-Leftist Bill Gates?

In fact, at least one "Birther" has responded to the publication of the complete recording by claiming that the audio stream was "hacked" in some way to add the additional content beyond that which is provided in the commonly referenced truncated recording.

LesserEvil:

Why settle this issue when at any time you need you can connect your opposition to the birthers? They are too good to let go.

LesserEvil: Donald_McRonald: Cataholic: Link (new window)

It is the actual form filled out by the hospital/physician and transmitted to the registrar. As you can see, Obama's would contain more information, such as name of the hospital, age of parents, and the name of the attending physician.

Reasonable people have already concluded that this is a non-story. Releasing a copy of what is likely a hand-written document will not change the birfers' minds one bit.

:::sigh::::

Nirthers: "Where's the birth certificate?"

Obama's people: "Here's a certificate of Live Birth" in other words, not a certified copy of the original that could easily be made by photocopying the original on file and certifying it with a government's Notary stamp.

Nirthers: "That's not an actual birth certificate"

Obama's people: "It's a legal document, suck it." (avoiding the fact that it is not, in fact, the actual birth certificate or a copy thereof)

Nirthers: ...


and so on and so on.

So far, the only arguments "against" what I've stated are that it's a legal document... so what? Legal documents can't be based on mistaken data? It's a computer-generated certificate. Did a clerk locate the original birth certificate on site, then issue the certificate, or did they look up an SSN on a computer an hit "Print" to generate a standard CoLB? Likely the later, then they stamped it, you know, to certify that it came from the state's official offices.

Let's see:

Did Obama publish his original birth certificate online?

No.

Did Obama publish a certified copy of his original birth certificate online?

No.

Would such an act satisfy the nirthers?

Answering that one is a straw man, but I see many of you defending Obama's actions using this one.

I say that publishing a certified copy of his original birth certificate would put the nirthers firmly in the corner, but dismissing people who have their doubts right now is idiocy, and downright dishonest.

You dismiss the simple logic presented based on "it's a legal document!" which is purely an absurd position, since it does not speak to the actual matter at hand, nor does that "legal document" actually prove anything. That legal document could easily have been produced based on falsified information. Nothing could prevent a low level clerk from adding a CoLB record to the state databases just before printing the certificate. It's an electronic record.... I've worked on mainframes, and it's not hard to insert raw data into a system like that. I doubt there is much more concern beyond protecting read access due to Privacy issues. Clerks who access the data also have access to modify and insert data - it's part of their job.

Bloody William: If the DoH statement isn't enough, why the fark would any document to originate from the DoH be enough?

Why not a, you know, actual copy of the original birth certificate, instead of a certification that a record exists in a database? Is this really hard for you people to understand, or are you just being purposely obtuse?

Grassy knoll!! Conspiracy! A clerk falsified it, even though it's been verified by the highest person in that office, it's still a fake! Conspiracy!!

Oswald did it!

THE ORIGINAL DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RELEASED TO MAKE THE CERTIFICATE LEGAL.

Bloody William: SkinnyHead: The DOH statement explained why a copy of the birth certificate cannot be released to third parties who lack a direct and tangible interest in it. It did not purport to say that if Obama gets a certified copy of his own birth certificate, he can't show it to anyone. That would be absurd.

You know what? It's been over 500 posts. fark it. Your problems with this will never be satisfied, and they will also never be respected by the president, the government, or the vast, vast majority of Americans. This bullshiat doesn't matter. Your speculation and whining doesn't matter. And whatever I say, doesn't matter.

Barack Obama is president. He is recognized as president in the eyes of the law, and he is recognized as a natural-born citizen in the eyes of the law. Nothing you say or do will change that. Obama will remain president for the next 3 1/2 years, and possibly for the next 7 1/2 years. And there is not a single thing the birthers can do to change that.

Well said. I'm done. There is no satisfying these people.

CHALLENGE:

Show me any official Hawaii Birth Certificate, for anyone, obtained from their vital statistics records.

I want to see what it is the birfers are looking for.

(What? They haven't done this yet? In all these months of complaining, they haven't *once* pulled up someone *else's* records to prove it can be done, and that Obama is just stonewalling?)

LesserEvil: I say that publishing a certified copy of his original birth certificate would put the nirthers firmly in the corner, but dismissing people who have their doubts right now is idiocy, and downright dishonest.

Puh-farking-lease. These people are already in the corner. People who still have doubts about Obama's birth are idiots or mentally ill, or possibly both. Sorry, but that's a fact.

LesserEvil:
Why not a, you know, actual copy of the original birth certificate, instead of a certification that a record exists in a database? Is this really hard for you people to understand, or are you just being purposely obtuse?

*facepalm*

No, it's not hard to understand. But it's hard to understand why birfers can't understand the following:

1. The United States of America is a nation of laws, not men.
2. The law of Hawaii states that when requesting a replacement certificate of birf, you will get a new copy which is as equally valid and correct in the eyes of the law as the original.
3. This document, which is legally valid and correct, has been presented as evidence of Obama's citizenship, and under the law this is good enough.

Think of it this way: Your job requires a copy of your birth certificate to make sure you're not an illegal Messican or whatever. You don't have it. You request a new one. You get this. They tell you to fark off. Repeat ad nauseum. This is what Birfers are basically telling the rest of us: We (men) do not care what the law says, we want something else. See #1 Above.

Do you understand this or not?

/Don't have my original.
//Never been asked to produce it, since my replacement is LEGALLY VALID.

printboy: Befuddled: printboy: And I care....because????

You're a liberal?

For $19.95 I can be just about anything !!!!

I think you'll find Craigslist is more useful for that than Fark.

LesserEvil: Why not a, you know, actual copy of the original birth certificate, instead of a certification that a record exists in a database? Is this really hard for you people to understand, or are you just being purposely obtuse?

The Certification of Live Birth made available for public viewing constitutes prima facie evidence that President Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and it is dishonest for you to suggest otherwise. I am curious; have you simply conducted absolutely no research regarding the subject that you are addressing, or is your position so devoid of actual merit that you are only able to support it through the use of dishonesty?