 |
| Just to be clear - this graphic is a joke. It doesn't have O's name on it. It also has a seal in the lower left that says "Certified Fake". |
Me, I buy that he's a natural born citizen as I've said several times before. Really, the newspaper articles lend the credibility to the Certificate of Live Birth for me.
The question is, why all the secrecy? If I want to apply for a driver’s license or a passport, I gotta dig up mine. Why not for the President of the United States? I mean, hey, I nominate Daniel Hannan for president. Prove he’s not a natural born citizen. Bring up the fact he’s British, and I’ll call you a racist. Ask for his birth records, and I’ll say “nope, sorry. Law’s got my hands tied. I really wish I could, but …”
Ok, it’s a little bit of a stretch, but you see the approximate parallel. So I buy Barack was born here, taking a little bit of it (as we all have to do eventually with just about everything) on faith. Yup. Natural born citizen, and even if he weren’t at this point, the moment he was sworn in -- in my book it’s pretty much a moot point – especially considering the obvious historical significance of his election. Too many wicki stickets the Constitution doesn’t address (but perhaps we should think about fixing that).
The question remains (and should especially for “investigative”, “whistle-blowing” journalists) … why all the secrecy?
Now ... call me crazy, but according to that article ... IN THE NEW YORK TIMES ... there ARE birth records that haven't been released (or if there aren’t, they’re not allowed to release information indicating that, either … think HIPPA or FERPA). In the story, it is emphasized that the Hawaii governor ... a DEMOCRAT who wanted badly to PUT THE QUESTION TO REST ... cannot release the document( s ) only because it would be illegal for him to do so. Sorry, I’d love to, but there’s nothing that can be done. The law is the law, and my hands are tied.
What is not emphasized, but is right there in the NEW YORK TIMES article -- is that there is one thing that would make it legal.
And that would be one Barack H. Obama's consent.
Which he apparently won't give.
Is "why not"? such an inappropriate question?
It wouldn't be if it were a Republican, I can guarantee you that. Not to the "protect Obama from any embarrassing questions at all costs" crowd.
Any responses consisting of name calling and derision that don't address the question as to why the question is inappropriate or it's "crazy" to ask it will be summarily tossed out.
39 comments:
What secrecy? Obama has already shown his birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth, which is the official birth certificate of Hawaii.
He is the is the first and so far the only US president (or for that matter presidential candidate) to have posted his birth certificate. And, the facts on it were confirmed by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii.
The image that you show is a forged "birth certificate" from Kenya. There have been several.
Re Obama's consent. He has already shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate, which is legally sufficient. He cannot show the original or consent to have it shown because Hawaii does not send out the original anymore--not to anyone. It has not sent out the original since the short-form certification became the official birth certificate in 2001--even to people who were born before 2001.
Nonsense!
If the Certificate of Live Birth is "the" official Hawaii birth certificate, then what was the governor looking for, and what did he find that he says he is not allowed to show?
Or is the Governor of Hawaii and the New York Times just making that up?
I will quote from the article:
A privacy law that shields birth certificates has prompted Gov. Neil Abercrombie to abandon efforts to dispel claims that President Obama was born outside Hawaii, his office says.
State Attorney General David Louie told the governor that privacy laws barred him from disclosing an individual’s birth documentation without the person’s consent, a spokeswoman for the governor, Donalyn Dela Cruz, said Friday.
What are they talking about?
At the very least, one obfuscates something that the other does not. What is it that Obama will not allow the Governor of Hawaii -- who incidentally wants to do this to HELP Obama ... doesn't want us to see?
Obama has already shown his official birth certificate. The discussion that the NYT was referring to was over whether Abercrombie could release the original birth certificate or possibly hospital records in support of the official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth.
Currently the situation is that they cannot because of privacy laws. BUT THEY CAN CHANGE THE PRIVACY LAWS; they haven't gotten around to it.
You do not believe that the Certification of Live Birth is the official birth certificate?
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
"In truth, Obama has proved that he is a native of Hawaii, and this proof would hold up in any legal or administrative proceeding.
In order to explain the birthers’ deception on this point, it is necessary to delve into the arcana of Hawaiian vital records. The document that Obama has released, which carries the title “certification of live birth,” confirms that the president was born in Honolulu. It is a legal birth certificate, and, as the Honolulu Star-Bulletin notes, it is the only kind of birth certificate the state of Hawaii issues.
FactCheck.org has a close-up photo of the certificate, which states clearly at the bottom: “This copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.” If a court were somehow to take up the question of Obama’s eligibility, then, the birth certificate would almost certainly be sufficient to resolve the question in his favor. The opposing side would have to provide serious evidence calling into question the veracity of Hawaii’s official state records. Innuendo and hearsay would not be admissible.
Further, if Congress were to pass the so-called birther bill, Obama would be able to comply easily. The bill would require presidential campaigns to submit “a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate” to the Federal Election Commission. The certificate Obama has released publicly would meet this requirement."
And the Journal concluded:
"Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof. We know that he was born in Honolulu as surely as we know that Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Ark., or George W. Bush in New Haven, Conn."
Here is a photocopy of Obama’s official birth certificate. Notice the seal on the back. Yes, it is on Factcheck’s site, but the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Here is the first of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
Notice where it says that there is an original birth certificate filed. Well, in 1961 foreign birth certificates, even those from other states, could not be filed in Hawaii. So the birth certificate in Obama’s files must be a Hawaii birth certificate.
Here is the second of the two confirmations by the officials in Hawaii.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
Notice where it says that the document in the files VERIFIES that Obama was born in Hawaii. So, not only is there an official Hawaiian birth certificate in the files, but it says right on it that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hawaii has never allowed the Department of Health to issue a birth document of any kind that says on it that anyone was born in Hawaii unless there was proof that the child was born in Hawaii, and that is what the officials in Hawaii have confirmed twice.
And here is the confirmation by the governor of Hawaii, Linda Lingle, a Republican, that says that Obama was born in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/hawaii_gov_lingle_answers_the.html
Again, you do not have to convince me that Obama was born in Hawaii. This, ultimately, is what this post is about. That anybody who says it's ok to question it is lumped in with people who won't believe it no-how no-way no-where no-when. Which is what it appears your'e doing with me here.
When you say
Currently the situation is that they cannot because of privacy laws. BUT THEY CAN CHANGE THE PRIVACY LAWS; they haven't gotten around to it.
...that doesn't give the complete picture -- because Obama could authorize their release because they are his records. Then it would be legal under the current privacy law to release it.
Apparently he will not. Why not? That is the only question I'm asking here.
I will agree that The Certificate of Live Birth is an official legal document and I buy that it isn't forged, especially after seeing the newspaper reports from that time period. I disagree that it is the same thing as "the" birth certificate, nor did the WSJ article say that it was "the" official birth certificate nor is "the" official document. There is more than one official document. "An" official document, yes. "The" official document, no. "The" implies "one".
It doesn't matter what the Journal concluded, especially considering it didn't conclude what you are saying -- which appears to be that there isn't anything else to release because the two entities are one ... "the" official "Birth Certificate" (before turning around and saying that there is, but they don't have to ... which isn't any different than what I'm saying).
Again ... the governor of Hawaii wanted to release the other document(s) to put this whole thing behind us. He found he could not without Obama's consent. He didn't release them, ergo he didn't get Obama's consent.
I really don't care about any "birther" bill and what would be sufficient evidence under "it" (whatever "it" is, I know nothing about it) . It doesn't change the fact that something is being hidden, and I think it is perfectly legitimate for people to wonder ask what it is. Which is all I'm saying.
Remember, I agree with this statement: "Obama has already provided a legal birth certificate demonstrating that he was born in Hawaii. No one has produced any serious evidence to the contrary. Absent such evidence, it is unreasonable to deny that Obama has met the burden of proof."
Even that second part. It is unreasonable to deny it. But it is not unreasonable to question it.
"... the idea that they could forge such a detailed document and the seal is laughable."
Really? Defense by funnybone? "I laugh, therefore it cannot be true!"???
Dude, seriously. Any document can be forged. Again, I'm not saying this one (again, not the original birth certificate, which, again, has not been released) has been forged. I am saying it is not unreasonable to question it.
There is a difference.
Oh, I just caught this.
The image that you show is a forged "birth certificate" from Kenya. There have been several.
The image that I show is a joke. It's one I made for myself, using the website I linked it to. It has my name on it, my parents name, my location of birth, etc. It's got jack to do with Obama's birth certificate, other than the fact that the joke is a reference to the controversy.
Sorry about the joke birth certificate. It looked a lot like the first "Kenyan birth certificate."
Re: "because Obama could authorize their release because they are his records. Then it would be legal under the current privacy law to release it.'
Let's deal with the word "authorize" first. Obama cannot authorize their release to anyone but himself. The law in Hawaii provides that birth certificates can be sent only to a list of authorized recipients (mainly family). It does not provide that Hawaii can show it to anyone else, even if Obama were to ask for it.
So, Obama could ASK for the original and then show it, you may respond. Sure, he can ask for the original, but will Hawaii send it to him? Hawaii does not send the original out to anyone else, and in fact it has not sent out the original since 2001.
Yes, it could change that regulation, particularly if Obama asks them to do so. But why should he ask? What is wrong with the official birth certificate that everyone else gets? Why should Obama ask for something that others do not get? And why do it when it is unnecessary since the official birth certificate is legal proof and the confirmations of THREE Republican officials confirm it?
As you said, there is also the original birth certificate in addition to the official one. But until now no president has ever show ANY birth certificate.
Why are people now urging Obama to show two?
There is only one reason, and it is based on the LIE that he was born in Kenya--or some other country. But since that is a stupid lie, why should Obama show another version of the perfectly legal OFFICIAL birth certificate?
The key to focus on is NOT whether or not Obama could show the original, it is to focus on the LIE that he was born in Kenya or some other country.
If as you say you agree that Obama was born in Hawaii, then why should he show anything else?
(The allegations that the original would show that his parents were not married or that his father was a Moslem or that his race was listed as White are all fantasies. There are no fields on the original that refer to marriage status, religion or the race of the child.)
No, it's not based on a lie, it's based on a question -- one that was originally brought up by the Clinton campaign during the primaries.
Now, some people have chosen to believe that since there's a question and they would like to believe he was born in Kenya so that he would be disqualified -- that that is the case. Some people have added fuel to that fire by creating bogus documents.
They're nuts.
Perhaps the question has never been asked of any other presidential candidate. But that can't de-legitimize asking the question. Otherwise, having it be a requirement as it states in the Constitution means nothing.
The idea that there's NOTHING Obama can do is just as nuts. There is nothing to stop the President of the United States from travelling to any state, including his birth place, and having the document released to him, and having him publicly show it to anyone he wants to show it to. He can go to basketball games. He can go to France. He could shut these people the hell up for good.
But he won't.
Why not?
Why SHOULD he? It would throw a barrel of eggs on the faces of those of the "birther" persuasion, for one thing. It would also put to rest the whole issue for all but the nuttiest.
Now, the explanation I find the most likely is there might be something a little embarrassing on it - probably not to him but maybe to one or both of his parents. And, of course, there IS the POSSIBILITY that there's something ambiguous enough on it that might throw more fuel on the fire.
But this whole "anyone who asks is insane" thing, or even anyone who thinks it's reasonable for people to ask is just as insane ... bit -- that's what I'm getting at.
Ask me? Dude's the President, like it or not.
But we can't be putting questions off the table. Dangerous precedent.
All that being said, everything our anonymous commenter has said here about it being the only thing Hawaii releases anymore ... the only thing it gives you when you ask for proof, is what Obama had produced, that Certificate of Live Birth.
Those who want further proof are those who believe there may have been shenanigans going on behind the scenes. I think the newspaper articles from when he was born throw plenty of water on those theories.
Which is what most of the people I hang with believe as well.
I think the whole Obama birth certificate thing is a gas, frankly. And for the record, I could care less where he was born. I just get a kick out of arguments like these.
True story: back in the early days of the Iraq war --when I was still young(ish) and idealistic(ish) -- I cornered a leftist acquaintance in re: some of his more heated rhetoric about George W. Bush.
"You know that Bush isn't actually a Nazi, right?" I asked.
"There are some similarities...."
ME: "Yes, in that both gave speeches and liked dogs. But you're dodging the question. You do acknowledge that Bush is not, in fact, ginning up a genocide at this very moment?"
HIM: "Well, I mean, he's not, uhh, you know..."
ME: "and you do realize that there is no party identification card for the German National Socialist Workers' Party with the name 'George W. Bush' on it, right?"
HIM: "Well, uhhh, I guess there's not a card per se..."
etc. etc.
But when it comes to US state privacy law, all of a sudden we're all about the arcana of jurisprudence.
So how about this: I'll swear on a stack of Bibles that Obama was born in America, and that he's actually burning with desire to have his full official birth records released, when, say, Kos publicly swears on a stack of Bibles that there's no meaningful similarity between the Patriot Act and the Nuremberg Laws.
Otherwise it's yet another instance of gross liberal hypocrisy.
I won't hold my breath.
Actually, a better test for my leftist friends: Let's agree that "asking questions" about Obama's birth certificate is exactly as groundless and ludicrous as "asking questions" about whether or not Bush planned 9/11, and that we will bring all the force of our scorn and ridicule to bear on both positions equally.
Any takers? Think carefully.... You might want to consult some poll data in formulating your answer.
Re: "there might be something a little embarrassing on it - probably not to him but maybe to one or both of his parents. "
AS I previously note (perhaps you did not notice it), that CANNOT BE THE CASE.
The facts on Obama's official birth certificate were taken, duh, from the original birth certificate. That is now the new short form birth certificates work: A clerk copies the facts from the document in the files, and we know that there is an ORIGINAL birth certificate in the file from the first confirmation of the two Republican officials.
So his father's name is exactly the same, mother's name, and particularly the place of birth.
The name of the hospital (Kapiolani according to a witness and the former governor) and the name of the doctor are not likely to be embarrassing.
So that leaves speculation about whether or not his parents were married or the religion.
But, as I said:
(The allegations that the original would show that his parents were not married or that his father was a Moslem or that his race was listed as White are all fantasies. There are no fields on the original that refer to marriage status, religion or the race of the child.)
So, IF he could get the original, the reason that he does not is NOT because there is anything embarrassing on it. That leaves these possibilities: (1) He cannot get the original or it would be so difficult to do so as to be pointless; (2) He considers it unnecessary to do so since the OFFICIAL birth certificate is sufficient; (3) He does not want t0 get it because doing so would give birthers the impression that they forced a president to do something--which makes him look weak; (4) He can bide his time and wait to see whether the stupid issue splits the Republican party between the birthers and the others.
Just a note here that I hope you won't take personally here, Sev ... but I think you actually "couldn't care less" - which means you care so little that there's no possible way you could care any less.
I don't know when it started, but it's one of my few grammatical "fingernails on a chalkboard" issues (yeah, I know, it's a personal problem) ... and I'm on a low-key campaign to get people back to the original :-)
We should also be careful about assuming the 9/11 truther issue falling neatly on the left. It doesn't. The majority of it does, but there are some serious right-wing nutters who believe it, too. I have met some ... one of them is actually related to me (and no, it isn't jeffmon).
I've long had this theory that the extreme left and extreme right meet around back and shake hands.
Now that I've matured more I recognize that politics really isn't a one dimensional line. That "world's smallest political quiz" two dimensional grid is more realistic. I suspect a spherical surface would be even better but the questions would probably get unwieldy.
The reason they meet around back is actually because is more than one back at which to meet. There's the anarchist left and the anarchist right, and there's the statist left and the statist right. The anarchist left and right is where you have your 9/11 "truthers".
There are no leftist birthers to speak of because Obama appeals to both the statist left and the anarchist left for different reasons (each chooses to see and be encouraged by what they want to see in him -- which is actually a skill he himself said he's cultivated). The statist left loves what he's doing for the expansion of the size and scope of the state, so none of them are going to look a gift horse in the mouth. With the anarchist left it's because ... laws? We don't need no stinking laws! Besides, he's sticking it to The Man, man!
So it's only people on the right ... of either persuasion that have any interest in asking the eligibility question. Ergo, those are the camps in which it's going to pop up.
I work in IT, and with databases and reporting, specifically -- and I must say that going "forward" the move away from paper to electronic records in areas like this does have its down side when it comes to matters of "proving" things.
We have huge populations which renders most people publicly anonymous for most practical purposes. If a record gets inserted in a database, the software that prints out "proof" will dutifully print it out on the selected official paper when someone asks for it. If someone has to physically stamp it and they're not familiar with the person or familiar with people familiar with the person, their only option is to believe the data and just stamp it. In other words, it makes seamless forgery easier.
I myself have removed ex-inlaws and other undesirable things from pictures using Paint Shop Pro -- and while my efforts could probably be detected by a lot of people by zooming in and inspecting patterns, I can see the day coming when the sophistication will be here (if it's not here already) to have a computer program clean that stuff up to where a doctored digital photo would appear authentic even to an expert.
The implications of which is really a bit ... well let's just say there's some real cause for concern when it comes to evidence in court trials.
Or in the media.
Well, Anon ... I could by any of those except the first one:
"He cannot get the original or it would be so difficult to do so as to be pointless"
It would be hard to convince me that a person cannot get his own existing original birth certificate -- unless he/she were adopted. Especially if that person were the President of the United States.
The fourth reason there is also high on my list of possible reasons. There is a decent chance he finds it as amusing as a cat owner with a laser pointer. :-)
"AS I previously note (perhaps you did not notice it), that CANNOT BE THE CASE.
The facts on Obama's official birth certificate were taken, duh, from the original birth certificate. That is now the new short form birth certificates work: A clerk copies the facts from the document in the files, and we know that there is an ORIGINAL birth certificate in the file from the first confirmation of the two Republican officials."
Cannot is a really strong word that most of us with real world experience avoid using too often. "Not likely", sure. "Cannot" ... I don't know, have you seen the original? Something could be scrached out, hand-written on the side ... it is possible that there is evidence on it of something. If by "the information" you mean "the visible text in the proper fields", it is extremely unlikely, yes.
But there is more to information than letters and numbers in official fields. Ask any crime investigator. So without having seen it, I can't say for certain. There is ALSO the possibility, again, however remote, that information was ... "corrected" as it was copied from one form to the other. It may not be protocol. Good chance it wouldn't be legal. It certainly wouldn't be common. But it is certainly possible.
Note, once again, that I am not saying that it happened.
But as I said, cannot is a big word.
Re: "It would be hard to convince me that a person cannot get his own existing original birth certificate -- unless he/she were adopted. Especially if that person were the President of the United States."
http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090606_kokua_line
What part of "no longer issues certifications" don't you get?
You can also look on the Hawaii DOH site and look at the form for obtaining a birth certificate. You can see that there is only one form--not one for the official birth certificate and not one for the original.
Some birthers have claimed that if you write a letter specifically asking for the original, and enclose the money, then you will get the original. But if this were true, birthers would have done it (one woman claimed to have done it, but all that she showed was a photocopy of the original {and she had the original} and a dated receipt which could have been for the official.)
Opps, that should read: "no longer issues CERTIFICATES." Hawaii now issues Certifications, of course.
Re: "Cannot is a really strong word that most of us with real world experience avoid using too often. "
Your point is well taken in logic. Shall we say that when I used cannot, I referred to something of such a low possibility as to be meaningless. Each time we buy a lottery ticked we CAN win the lottery, and so it would be wrong to say CANNOT, but the chance is so small that we should do our tax planning based on it.
Since the chance is so low,what is the motive for demanding the original? The officials have stated several times that the critical fact, that Obama was born in Hawaii, is the same on the original as on the official.
What part of 'no longer issues certificates" don't I get?
None.
It's not a question of issuing a certificate. A certficate of live birth has been issued. Due to a polarized electorate and the fact that his father was not a citizen and some people are suspicous, the question has been asked, "hey, was he REALLY born here?" And there apparently exists a document that would shed as much light on that as any fact discoverable today on that question. So we go through this sequence of questioning:
1) Is there an original "long form" document, or is there not?
2) If there is, can anybody see it?
3) If answer to (2) is "no", what is the point of its continued existence?
4) if the answer to (2) is "yes", then why the reluctance to haul it out and prove all of these idiots wrong once and for all?
Phil,
you are of course correct. I couldn't care less where Obama was born. The residency requirements in the constitution -- to say nothing of weightier provisions -- ceased to matter when both parties started parachuting candidates in from just anywhere to run in state and national elections (here's looking at you, Senator Hillary Clinton of "New York," but let's not forget George H.W. Bush of "Texas" (and Dick Cheney of "Wyoming," for that matter)). I say if we're gonna go all banana republic, let's go whole hog.
I don't assume that all 9/11 truthers are leftists. As you note, the far far left and the far far right are pretty much indistiguishable (P.J. O'Rourke, I think, once said that you could put Pat Buchanan's speeches side by side with Al Sharpton's and barely tell the difference). Still, there are a lot more lefties than righties muttering about fire not melting steel, and if someone started doing it at a Republican gathering he'd be laughed out of the room.... a lefty doing the same would get a Grammy and a sitcom deal from Time Warner.
I think my larger point stands just fine, though, and the ongoing Jeffmon/ "Anonymous" debate illustrates it perfectly. Yes or no: "George Bush lied us into war."
The left says "yes!" (exclamation points x1000), because Joe Wilson said so, because some Nigerian minster said so. And, of course, Halliburton. That's it, full stop, case closed, and questioning any of the highly dubious assertions in that long and tortured chain of "reasoning" is evidence of lunacy, warmongering, lunatic warmongering, and warmongering lunacy. (And probably raaaacism).
But point out that Obama could ask for his birth records if he really wanted to (or, you know, just pull it out of the ol' Dunham-Soetero family scrapbook) and all of a sudden they're willing to split exegetical hairs like Thomas frcikin' Aquinas.
And what's more -- and extra-delicious, to a savorer of chutzpah like myself -- they don't really give a crap if he was born in America. You could pull out ironclad proof he was born somewhere else (a signed statement from Marx, Gramsci, and Che Guevara, maybe?) and they -- hat tip to Phil -- couldn't care less. Rules are for suckers, especially when they get in the way of the radiant vision of the transnational left.
The only dog they have in this fight, in other words, is that someone has dared to question Our Glorious Ruler-Messiah, and He must be defended against the heretics and infidels.
Re: “IF the answer is "yes", then why the reluctance to haul it out and prove all of these idiots wrong once and for all?”
Answer: The answer to the question is indeed YES, but Hawaii does not send out the original anymore. Why not? Because they made that rule when they made the Certification the official birth certificate in 2001. Could they change the rule? Yes, of course they could, but all that would do would be to do, if it were done, would be to require Obama to ask for the original and then to send it to him.
So they would both have to change the rule and he would have to ask for the document. If the rule were changed, he still might not ask for the original because (1) the official is the birth certificate everyone else gets and it is sufficient; (2) it would look weak to yield to crazy birthers; (3) If anyone serious were to ask for it, such as a Congressional investigating committee, that would be a good time to do it; (4) the issue still may split the Republican party, so why act now?
I have seen replies to this, which is that Obama should do it simply because “the American people want it” or “to stop this from going on” (this being the birther questioning). But the majority of the American people do not want it, only some of them—and the statistics of how many varies. And the publication would not stop the questioning. If a birther believes that Obama was born in Kenya and that he somehow got from Kenya to the USA without either a visa or being entered on his mother’s passport, then he or she will not believe the original birth certificate of Hawaii either.
There is, of course, a way around this, which is to change the law entirely and make an exception to the privacy rule for the president’s birth certificate and make it a public document posted for everyone to see. Sadly, I have seen on birther sites that some birthers have already stated that if that happens, they will claim that the original birth certificate has been forged. So, the issue would not go away, it would simply change its focus to the new document, and birthers would continue to publish their lies about him using a foreign passport, having become a citizen of Indonesia or being ineligible because his father was not a citizen.
In short, if you showed the original birth certificate, you would not stop the idiots, they would simply shift their focus.
Is it not sufficient to know that he was born in Hawaii, and that the evidence for this—the OFFICIAL birth certificate, the confirmation of the witnesses, a witness who recalls being told of the birth in 1961 and writing home about it, his Kenyan grandmother saying that he was born in Hawaii in separate interview, the notices in the newspapers, the absence of a visa or him being entered on a passport—is overwhelming?
The answer to the question is indeed YES, but Hawaii does not send out the original anymore. Why not? Because they made that rule when they made the Certification the official birth certificate in 2001. Could they change the rule? Yes, of course they could, but all that would do would be to do, if it were done, would be to require Obama to ask for the original and then to send it to him.
Who is saying anything about anybody sending anything anywhere?
You seem to be saying there's this document that exists that some people want to see to verify what it exists to verify (for why else does it exist?), but since it can't be sent anywhere, then there's nothing that can be done.
Sending the document to someone isn't the only option available.
At the very least, President Obama could sign off that he would like to see it, and tromp on down with whomever he wants to tromp on down with in the hall of records or wherever it is, or have the person responsible for retrieving such things to bring it up to the front desk -- where he could then show it to anybody he deems fit, including TV cameras and pundits from anywhere, have NYT photographers standing by, and say, "Ok, what else do you want?"
Again, if he can't have access to it and nobody else can have access to it then why does it exist?
No, you are right, you would not stop the most hard core of the idiots.
But you would take the last shred of any benefit of the doubt they have with anyone but themselves. Their credibility with ANYONE close to the mainstream would vanish in a puff of logic.
Re: "Again, if he can't have access to it and nobody else can have access to it then why does it exist?"
It exists simply to be the basis for the official birth certificate, the one that Hawaii sends out, and if there is a question of the accuracy of the official birth certificate, the original is the source from which the official document can be checked.
But, unless Hawaii changes the regulations, the original is not now sent to anyone, even the person involved. And neither the original nor the official can be shown to anyone else than the persons listed as eligible to receive copies of the BC. In other words, the law would have to be changed to put either Obama's official birth certificate or his original birth certificate on display.
Currently, Hawaii cannot display BCs; it can only send them out to eligible people. If it were to change its regulations, it could start sending out the original again--but only to the people on the list and only if they asked for it.
Only by completely changing the law and making the Obama files public documents--which is possible but takes time and effort--could Obama's original be put on file unless both the regulations were changed and he asked for a copy and then posted it.
And, why should he do the latter? Just because some people are curious? No way.
And, it would make him look weak, since he gave in to the cries of the birthers.
And it would imply that there was something wrong with the official birth certificate, when there isn't anything wrong with it.
And, he still COULD do it (Ask for a change in the regulations and then post the original), but only if and when he needs to do it. But there are no congressional investigations that would imply need, nor is it a political issue likely to affect the 2012 election since the "we want to see" folks would be unlikely to vote for Obama anyway. But, if that changes, then there is plenty of time for Obama to ask Hawaii to change its regulations and then post the original.
The document exists so that it can be used to verify the facts it contains.
You are confusing what the law means, or misrepresenting what it says.
The state law prohibits its release to anyone who does not have a "direct and tangible interest", which the text of the law interprets as the wife, children, parents, relatives, or lawyers of the person whose birth it documents.
Just as not just anyone can get my birth certificate, but I still have to show it to get a passport or for other purposes, perhaps such as to quell skepticism as to my qualification for a job that requires certain things to be true about the location of my birth or the legal status of my parents, or both. I can obtain it and show it to anyone I want to.
Similarly, Obama can obtain his and show it to anyone he wants. Perhaps he would have to go to Hawaii to get one.
But he can.
And right now it's causing enough concern in Hawaii as a budgetary and resource issue as well. There are Hawaii Lawmakers as of just a couple of weeks ago are trying to change the law so that ANYONE can obtain a copy for $110.
Heh.
So much for principle.
Frankly, I don't agree with that bill. On the other hand, the motivation is apparently strong enough that five legislators wrote and submitted it.
Again... five legislators who want to help Obama.
Remember, the question here isn't whether or not sufficient legal documentation has been provided to satisfy the law.
It is whether or not it is unreasonable in this case to ask for further verification.
.... and, I suppose I should add why, if there's no problem, is it apparently such a big deal to get it done?
Re: "I can obtain it and show it to anyone I want to."
However, in Hawaii the only birth certificate you can obtain and show to anyone you want is the official birth certificate, not the original birth certificate. Those are the current regulations.
Re: "And right now it's causing enough concern in Hawaii as a budgetary and resource issue as well. There are Hawaii Lawmakers as of just a couple of weeks ago are trying to change the law so that ANYONE can obtain a copy for $110."
That would have required a change in the law, and it will not happen because it never got out of committee. And, guess what, even that proposal did not refer to the original. If it had passed and you had paid the $110, you would have seen the same original that is already posted.
As I said, they COULD change the law completely to make the original a public document that anyone can see, but they are too busy to do it. They have other issues.
The OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii is legally sufficient and more than sufficient since THREE Republican officials in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on it.
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie Wants Facts to Silence 'Birthers'
The certification document lists only the date, hour and location of Obama's birth, as well as the names and race of his parents. It includes an embossed seal of authenticity from the Department of Health, according to images posted online.
The birthers, who have provided no evidence to support their claims, believe the withholding of Obama's original birth document reflects a conspiracy to cover up Obama's ineligibility to hold the presidency.
State law prohibits the release of original birth records to persons without a "direct and tangible interest."
ABC News here distinguishes between the two, and yet still directly states that law only prohibits the release of the original birth records .... that is distinct from the short form -- to persons without a direct and tangible interest
The story goes on to say:
Only Obama, his wife, children, relatives, parents or lawyers have such an interest, according to the text of the law. None has consented for the document to be released.
Whether Abercrombie can provide access to the original birth records without Obama's permission remains unclear.
The New York Times and ABC News, neither of whom are friends to the birthers -- have very recent stories on the record which disagree with your assertion.
Do you have the text of the law? Wanna go over it?
Incidentally, I have never said that the official certificate wasn't legally sufficient.
I just said that skeptics asking questions about the reluctance to show the original is legitimate.
And I also said that I disagree with the proposed law that would allow anyone (not just Obama et. al) to obtain a copy of any of the records at all. So I'm just as happy that it wouldn't get out of comittee. It would be a bad law. Just as a law prohibiting the exposure of original birht documents to anyone under any circumstances would be a bad law.
The only reason I brought it up at all was to demonstrate the volume of demand from those who are questioning the accuracy of even the official records due to the transient nature of his parents' lifestyle. Has nothing to do with which they would get -- it did look like they would get the one that was released, you are correct there.
But I dispute the assertion that the original document can't be released to no-one, no-how based on common sense (why keep it if nobody can see it?) and the fact that two major [liberal, sympathetic] news outlets say different.
Re: "State law prohibits the release of original birth records to persons without a "direct and tangible interest." "
Answer: ABC got it wrong. Hawaii law prohibits the release of ANY birth certificate, the original or the official, to persons without a "direct and tangible interest."
IN addition to that fact, Hawaii sends out only the new official birth certificate, and has sent only the new official, short form birth certificate out since 2001.
Re: "I dispute the assertion that the original document can't be released to no-one, no-how based on common sense (why keep it if nobody can see it?) and the fact that two major [liberal, sympathetic] news outlets say different. "
http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090606_kokua_line
What part of No, you can't obtain a "certificate of live birth" anymore" don't you understand.
That was published IN Hawaii, and if the newspaper had made a mistake, it would have had to correct it quickly because hundreds of people who knew the regulations would have read it. And there was no correction.
IN addition, there is only one form for applying for a birth certificate in Hawaii, not two, one for the official and one for the original.
Finally, if you still believe that it is possible to get the original, all you have to do is to get someone in Hawaii to apply for and get the original. No one has showed that she or has done it, though one person claimed to have done it (unfortunately, there is no proof that she did not simply copy the original that she had saved from her birth and showed it along with a receipt for payment, which could have been for the COLB).
You could, of course, write letters asking about it to the two newspapers in Hawaii and the DOH of Hawaii. They will say what I said, but if you do not believe me, then it would be good to check.
I am, by the way, describing the current situation. I agree with you that the original should be sent out again, but that means that Hawaii would have to CHANGE the regulations. I think that they should--why don't you recommend it to the new governor or the newspapers in Hawaii or the legislators in Hawaii.
But unless and until they change the regulations, the old ones are still in effect. Hawaii sends out ONLY the new, short-form birth certificate.
Ah, well at least we have some evidence presented to talk about now. That is progress.
As to the "they would have had to retract it" argument -- that would be only if someone complained, and only if they were wrong. But they weren't wrong to say that the HDOH "non longer sends out" anything but the standard "certificate of live birth". So there would be no need to retract it.
But they didn't say it's because state law prohibits it.
Seem we're still talking about a HDOH policy, not a law, when we say the HDOH doesn't "send out" anything but the new, standard certificate of live birth anymore. Department policy is not the same thing as a law.
The law (Hawai‘i Revised Statute §338-18) is here: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
It deals with "vital statistics records", which covers more than just birth certificates or what gets "sent out" (again, this thing doesn't have to be "sent out") and to whom the state is allowed to release (not "send out", but permit to inspect or obtain a copy of vital birth records ... again, not necessarily "sent out" -- although nothing but department policy would prohibit "sending" it "out", either, provided it was to a person or entity legally described in the HRS §338-18).
According to the law, not only can the registrant (1-5) or immediate family inspect the records, a person or agency acting on behalf of the registrant can inspect them (7). Or a court order can be made (9). Someone can look at it. Really.
"Finally, if you still believe that it is possible to get the original, all you have to do is to get someone in Hawaii to apply for and get the original."
Yes, I know, some lady tried and was denied. Which is only proper.
I never said that just anyone can get one, and in fact I said that I do *not* believe that just anyone *should* be able to get one (even if just anyone could. That would be wrong.
The fact remains that Obama and a host of other people, according to the law, can have access to inspect the vital records in question. All of it hinges on Obama's permission according to the state law.
Which brings us back to the original question.
Why the reluctance to give that permission?
You gave a couple of possible reasons which are interesting to ponder. He feels that it does his cause more good than harm to keep them private. It might make him look weak. Or he might be afraid it would lend credence to the assertion that the certificate of live birth isn't good enough for anyone.
Me, I think the question of qualifying to be POTUS is an issue requiring a bit more serious investigation than, say, qualifying for a driver's license or passport. So I say, hey, if this thing exists, and there's no problem on it, then why not look at it and verify it? If you ask me, not doing that implies that there might be something wrong with the certificate of live birth -- like if something on one doesn't jive with something on the other, for instance.
So I think it's a valid question, whether or not I actually believe it.
What I've seen from you is ... to turn one of the President's phrases (and notice I do call him The President) ... a certain "clinging" to the idea that the only reason the original hasn't been inspected is because the law prohibits it. There's lots of evidence to the contrary. It begs the question -- are you yourself afraid there might be something on the original document that could call his qualification into question -- which I find just as amusing as I find those who are certain he was born in Kenya because they want that to be true.
And all of my recent re-opening of the question was precipitated by the fact that the Democratic governor of Hawaii vowed to get to the bottom of it and lay the issue to rest, only to, a month later say "sorry, can't do it without Obama's permission."
Which made me scratch my head a little.
You are right that it is only state policy not to send out copies of the original anymore,and that the state could change that policy at any time. But, of course, they would have to do it for everyone, not just for Obama.
So, they would have to set up a procedure that said that you could get either your official birth certificate or your original birth certificate, or both. And they would have to set a fee for the original BC, or for both.
And they might have to hire new workers for the job of copying the originals, which would not be too expensive since the cost of the fee would offset the hires, but still it would take an effort to set the fee and make the hires.
And, when this is done, they still cannot SHOW the original of Obama's birth certificate to anyone. They can only send it to him, and only if he asks for it.
So, why should he ask for it? The official birth certificate is sufficient for everyone else. Thousands of people use it to prove their birth in the USA every year. Why should he ask for the original in addition to the official? Just because YOU want to see it?
The OFFICIAL birth certificate has already proven that he was born in Hawaii, especially with the confirmation of the three Republican officials. The original has no fields in it for Obama's religion or for the marital status of his parents, so it is unlikely to show anything that would shock or surprise anyone.
NO other president ever showed ANY birth certificate. Obama is the only one. McCain did not show his birth certificate in public (the one that is online is not his; it is a forgery). So, why should Obama ask for the original?
There is no reason to do it, and to do it because birthers--his enemies--called for it would make him look weak.
So, why should Hawaii go through the expense of changing its regulations for everyone unless Obama asks for his original, and why should Obama ask for his original (especially since it would force Hawaii to change its regulations for everyone.) If, however, hundreds of people in Hawaii wanted the right to get copies of their own original birth certificates, that would be a different matter, and Hawaii should change the regulations.
You are right that it is only state policy not to send out copies of the original anymore,and that the state could change that policy at any time. But, of course, they would have to do it for everyone, not just for Obama.
Why? Does nobody ever make exceptions to policy in special cases? Just a, "Hey, know what? This is a special case." There's no reasonable argument that it is not a special case. No laws would be broken. Happens all the time in other departments in the state and private realms all the time.
Yes, you're great at repeating your talking points about his "official" birth certificate being released. We've been over this. I agree.
Re: Why? Does nobody ever make exceptions to policy in special cases? Just a, "Hey, know what? This is a special case."
Answer: Obama's opponents would immediately cry out that Hawaii's Democratic governor was doing something unfair just to help Obama. And, it actually would be true. So to avoid the appearance and truth of doing something unfair just for Obama, they would have to do it for everyone.
The point about the official birth certificate already being shown is to ask, since the official birth certificate has been shown, and since the facts on it were confirmed by THREE Republican officials in Hawaii, why it should be desirable to change the state regulations at all?
Why either make an unfair special exception for Obama or be fair and change the regulations for everyone, if the Certification of Live Birth and the confirmations are sufficient?
Interesting angle.
So what you're saying is that nobody, not even Obama can see it (which is where you seem to have been headed all along), and to show it at all would be doing a favor to Obama, which we can't have.
Got it. I still think it's bunk, but ...
I'll call it the "But the Bell Rang!" defense (a la "A Christmas Story").
Re: "So what you're saying is that nobody, not even Obama can see it (which is where you seem to have been headed all along), and to show it at all would be doing a favor to Obama, which we can't have."
Answer: Basically that is right. The "favor" part is skewed. What we cannot have is doing something unfair to help Obama and only Obama. It would be fine to change the regulations for everyone.
It is absolutely correct that Obama and other persons born in Hawaii cannot see their original birth certificates. IF they were to change that regulation, and I think that they should, then it would still be the law that Hawaii could not show the original. It can only send it to an eligible applicant. So, not only would Hawaii have to change the regulations, but Obama would then have to ask for the original birth certificate.
And why should he do that when the OFFICIAL birth certificate is sufficient?
"It is absolutely correct that Obama and other persons born in Hawaii cannot see their original birth certificates"
I don't think that has been demonstrated.
Uh, we read the law. You are half correct, the law says the HDOH can't "show" it [to anyone the law doesn't authorize for it to be shown to]
You keep obfuscating the issue. The law says the original birth records (those include everything they've got, including the "long form") to a host of people.
There is a way to get it shown to people in Obama's circle. It could then be shown by Obama to anybody he wanted to.
Just not without Obama's consent.
Which is again, the whole point.
The HDOH, incidentally, wouldn't be violating a regulation, they would be making a policy exception. And it sure could be done -- especially in a special case like this one. You're saying no departmental policy can possibly be waived for the President of the United States. Baloney.
Not buying "but the BELL rang!"
There! Was that so hard?
Post a Comment