Tuesday, March 24, 2009

So what's the problem?

The top document is a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth. It has all sorts of good information in it - things like parents names, the hospital the baby was born in, the attending physician, weight and length of the baby, time of birth. You know interesting FACTS like that.

The bottom document is a Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth. It basically states that the individual named was born alive. In fact, it cannot be used for any official certification for things like passports, background checks, etc. It is, as stated by the State of Hawaii, subject to error. It's basically a computer printout based on some bureaucrat somewhere having actually "seen" the Certificate of Live Birth. This is what the Obama Administration is touting as the President's Certificate of Live Birth. It is not. (Note the actual certificate number is blacked out.)

Now I know it's Hawaiian state law that the Certificate of Live Birth cannot be released without the individual's consent. But wouldn't you think with all the controversy surrounding this document that Obama would release the actual birth certificate and put an end to this "urban legend"? But he doesn't. In fact he's hired lawyers to prevent that very thing from happening. Why would he do that if indeed he was born in a hospital in Honolulu? Maybe someone out there can explain it to me.


Mike West said...

I don't understand why he doesn't release the top form. What's the deal?

vwatt said...

Man, this blog is really going into La-La Land...disappointing. What's next-the Obama girls are members of a midget Al-Queda sleeper cell? This post is such old non-news, discredited many times, and laughable that I suspect it is just a ruse to stir the pot.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Hey Vance! You didn't answer the question.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

More info:


The question remains: Why not release the Certificate of Live Birth?

vwatt said...

As soon as you answer my question: Should the AIG execs responsible for the greatest financial fiasco in history be allowed to keep their bonuses? Please, no "contract" or "rule of law" answers- are you fundamentally, like Rushbo, in favor of them receiving bonuses? :-)

vwatt said...

Good enough for me but probably not for those in Kennedy conspiracy/La-La Land(go to FactCheck.org/elections). Fortunately, only about 12%(white,male,over 50, Rushbo Fans) of the U.S. populace is still fixated on this:

"Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.

The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller

Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp

The raised seal

Blowup of text

You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.

The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

Yes, they should. Some of these people, believe it or not, are considered essential to getting things back on track and repairing the damage done. Those bonuses were under contract just like AIG's utilities bill, advertising bill, etc. If Geithner did not want them to receive the money, he could have "blown the whistle" long ago. They should NOT be required to give it back. However, I notice the attorney general of New York has got some back by threatening to give their names to Acorn and company. Let the lawsuits begin . . . Now what does this answer have to with Obama not releasing his Certificate of Live Birth? I really would like to see what the liberal spin is on this, besides "it's old news".

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

The question is STILL not answered. WHY won't they release the Certificate of Live Birth? Especially if it exists, based on what "factcheck" says.

vwatt said...

So what would qualify as "releasing" the certificate? They have let people come and examine it-I would not let someone take my birth certificate from my house. I suppose the only approved solution would be to mail it to the Rush Limbaugh Show....this is a dead end witch hunt.
The Far Right might as well suck it up and get on with life-they are gonna be stuck with Obama for eight years.

Mike West said...

I have to sort of agree with Vance on this one. It's a dead issue. That doesn't mean it's not a legitimate issue, it just means that if it hasn't gotten traction yet, it never will.

Brodad Unkabuddy said...

I'm not the only one STILL asking this question. As far as the far left and the drive-by media is concerned, it may be a dead issue. But the question still remains and will have to be answered some day.