Cali Leading the Fight?Follow

That is the "Certification of Live Birth". At the time period in question, Hawaii allowed for parents of a child to file a form which would grant this exact certification to any child they had up to a year after birth (IIRC). If that was the case with Barack, those fields would have been filled out based on whatever information his mother filled out when applying for the certification. It's of note that this form is not itself considered sufficient evidence of citizenship in Hawaii for some state clearances and jobs. Yet, it's supposed to be sufficient for qualifying for President?

There is a second "long form Birth Certificate", which will include more data such as whether or not the form was generated via such application, or whether it was generated by a doctor in a hospital at the time of birth. The long form is the only certificate in question which could verify that Barack Obama was actually born in Hawaii, or if his mother simply filled out a form claiming he was. That's relevant. Yet no one who has access to this form has yet made an official statement about it one way or the other.



So because Hawaii has some screwy rule regarding which form they provide publicly, it's all ok? Again. How hard would it be for someone in an official capacity to go and actually read what the long form says and say on the record and under risk of perjury that the form shows that his birth records were generated at a hospital with a doctor and witnesses and not as a result of a later application? It would be very very easy. But no one has done it.



When did the State Department officially accept it?



No. She didn't. A spokesperson said after the fact that that was what she was saying, which is not an "official" statement at all. She only said that she had verified that a long form existed, but did not speak to the contents, or even verify that she had read what was on the form itself.

The spokesperson is not subject to perjury if she speculates about what the Director of the Department of Health meant by something. You get how this isn't the same as having the Director make an official statement to that effect.


Look. I'm really not some fringe nut on this. But I've heard and read enough to make me curious about the gaps in information we've been provided. Those gaps are easily filled, which makes it more odd that they have been left open. Why not settle the issue once and for all? Instead, what we've seen is court cases, most of which are challenges for other only semi-related things, which are then touted as "proof" that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

The only proof is the information contained on that long form. That's the one thing not a single person who's seen it has commented on officially. I'm sorry. That's not sufficient.



Again. There isn't "overwhelming evidence". We have a copy of a certificate which does not mean that he was born in Hawaii. And we have statements that a long form which could verify whether he was or was not exists, but nothing about whether it actually confirms that he was born in Hawaii.

I'm not refuting the certificate we've seen. I'm refuting the assumption that this certificate proves that he was born in Hawaii.

Edited, Jun 10th 2009 4:32pm by gbaji

I believe that Hawaii treats birth certificates as protected medical records. Without the consent of the person involved, they can't go on record and say "His medical records say this!" -- not without breaking the law.

Edited, Jun 10th 2009 6:44pm by Jophiel

Exactly, this is proof that Obama was born in the caves of Afghanistan.

Edited, Jun 10th 2009 6:07pm by baelnic

CBD. There are two completely different documents. One is a "Birth Certificate" (Or "Certificate of Live Birth", not sure of the official name). The other is a "Certification of Live Birth".

The first certifies the facts surrounding a birth that occurred in Hawaii. The second is simply a certification by the state of Hawaii that a person was born alive.

The second form is/was commonly handed out to foreign born citizens in Hawaii to be used as an official document for things like social security, employment, military service, etc. It is *not* proof that someone was born in Hawaii. It's the form you get if you immigrate to the US in Hawaii and you have a child who will need a birth certificate in order to go to school, work, etc.

The form you are going on about is the second form. It does not prove anything at all.


No amount of insisting that the copy of that form is "valid" or "accurately reflects the real form on file" changes the fact that the real copy of the "Certification of Live Birth" does not actually prove that he is a "Natural Born Citizen" of the United States of America.

Sheesh. I'd just like someone who has access to and has actually read the long form "Birth Certificate" to verify under some penalty of perjury that the information it contains shows that he was born in Hawaii. No one has done that. No one has come close to doing that. What we've gotten is a whole lot of semantic tap dancing.


If there was no reason to use these bait-and-switch techniques, then why use them? Why spend so much effort playing word games with the forms? Can't someone simply make a clear statement about this?

No. Quite the opposite in fact. I'm pointing out that the statement made by the only official in the Hawaii government to comment on this used language specifically designed to avoid charges of fraud or perjury if at some future date it were to be discovered that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii.

Surely, you've heard politicians use slippery language to avoid clearly stating something before right? If you ask someone if they're going to raise taxes, they'll say something like "We plan to make sure that taxes are never a burden on the people... blah, blah, blah...". Of course, they don't actually answer the question. She was asked to confirm that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii, and instead she said she had seen proof that the full and valid Birth Certificate was on file. Um... She didn't actually answer the question, did she?



No. We don't. That's the problem. The certificate that has been presented and posted and argued about is the same document that children born in foreign countries have. Immigrants are issued the same document as well. That form is not prove that someone was born in the US.


This is the problem I'm talking about.



No. They haven't. They're entitled to their opinions, of course, but there is no way that this form alone proves where he was born.



No. Other challenges surrounding this issue have. The problem is that in order to have a day in court you have to either be charged with a crime or suit, or have some grounds to charge a crime or suit. There's simply no precedent for just any US citizen challenging the qualification of someone to run for President of the US.

Thus, most of the challenges revolve around other claims of "harm" or "damages", most of which are tossed out because they are silly. But the actual issue of whether or not the documentation Obama has provided to date satisfies the Constitutional requirements has not really been determined or even discussed. Most of the cases have been denied a hearing on other grounds.




Why am I a fringe lunatic for being a bit concerned that a rule in our US constitution may be being violated? Silly me, but I would think that a candidate for President of the US would need to prove he's qualified under the Constitution, not the other way around. Should anyway. But apparently, the election rules don't require this to put someone on the ballot (and this isn't the first time either).


Can't you even acknowledge that this is a valid question? If it's so ludicrous why not just authorize an official and a few witnesses to read the original Birth Certificate and submit an official statement verifying that the contents show he was born in the US? Seriously. Why not do this? There's no violation of privacy here. I don't want to know what else is in there. I just want someone to state officially that the document in question exists and clearly states that he was born in Hawaii rather than someone who's mother applied for a certificate after the fact.


I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Ya gbaji, that site isn't biased at all. It must be trustworthy non-opinion based fact.

But hey, at least now I get to ********** to nude pictures of Obama's mom tonight.

Edited, Jun 10th 2009 9:23pm by TirithRR

Baseless allegation. Unless Hawai'i has become a storage facility for birth certificates from other states and/or countries, there is no reason to assume the birth certificate they have on file is anything other than a Hawaiian birth certificate.



Where did it ever say she was asked? She said that she was settling the skepticism by saying they had his birth certificate on file.



How do you know he hasn't had to do so at some point prior to being President?



You live in an odd world. I guess if you condone making **** up until proven otherwise, it's ok.



I want proof that any moron can make **** up and get it filed without the information being confirmed. You've provided a link showing that people can fill the form out accurately.

I haven't found anything that confirms your lunatic ******** about this issue.

The facts about loopholes in the system and the truth of Obama's birth are two completely different things.

Basically, that site is just pointing out possible loopholes in the legal system. Then says "Hey look, people do illegal things all the time, it's entirely possible Obama faked it!"

It's like if I came out and said "I never speed while driving" and someone confronted me about it. The proof of me never speeding is the fact that I have never received tickets for speeding, have never been pulled over for even a warning, etc. Then you pop in and say "You don't always get ticketed for speeding, see all this evidence here of other people not getting pulled over for speeding, and these facts here about Police officer per capita in your area!"

That link you provided indicated that the abstract record that Obama is supposed to be accurate.
they acknowledge that mistakes can be made and have a process to deal with it, and correct said problems.

The link went on to cite a case where some corrupt bureaucrats in new jersey who sold birth certificates. Ok, because that's relevant.

Pretty much everything else on that website is speculation.

So what do we get out of this. The Birth certificate should be accurate. If there was an error, they have a process to deal with it. So yes, you are accusing the government of Hawaii of fraud. nice.

I see you've made another post, I'll have to read that.

She asserted that she couldn't reveal the contents of the birth certificate because of the law, but that it was filed correctly and followed correct procedure. Given that you can't have a long version, with hospital etc without having been born in Hawaii, that wouldn't make much sense.

New site you linked states that every kind of birth certificate indicates that the person was born in the state of Hawaii. There is no other option. There's nothing here Gbaji. It's silly. both links you've given, aside from the speculation at the end, indicate that Obama was born where his certificate says he was born.

Edited, Jun 10th 2009 10:07pm by Xsarus

He did to the satisfaction of those who are actually tasked with worrying about such matters. that he didn't do so to your satisfaction is pretty unimportant.Why do it? To "satisfy" some lunatic bunch who'll just find some other reason to say it's not true? The people who actually matter are already satisfied with Obama's birth credentials. Should we really pretend that, if this happened, the Bergs and Donofrios would say "Well! That's it then!" and drop it?

Really?

This.

This debate is so 2008.