AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

Originally posted by oneclickaway
reply to post by rnaa

 

Maybe you should go read Factcheck, as they originally stated the ‘fact’ that Obama, or whoever he is, was a British citizen at birth by dint of his father’s Kenyan citizenship.

Yes, he was, until his right to claim Kenyan citizenship expired in 1984. And that is an issue because why exactly?

Kenyan law does not negate his American birthright in any way.

Here is that Factcheck article.

The certification of live birth is completely different from a certificate of live birth.

You are playing with word constructs in ways that have no significant meaning. What don't you get about 'certification' being both a verb and a noun and 'certificate' being a noun?

From Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: cer·ti·fi·ca·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌsər-tə-fə-ˈkā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 15th century

1 : the act of certifying : the state of being certified
2 : a certified statement

Definition 1 is a verb; definition 2 is a noun (even if Websters missed that point on the entry.

from Merriam-Webster Online.

Main Entry: 1cer·tif·i·cate
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)sər-ˈti-fi-kət\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English certificat, from Medieval Latin certificatum, from Late Latin, neuter of certificatus, past participle of certificare to certify
Date: 15th century

1 : a document containing a certified statement especially as to the truth of something; specifically : a document certifying that one has fulfilled the requirements of and may practice in a field
2 : something serving the same end as a certificate
3 : a document evidencing ownership or debt

Notice how that all fits together? A certificate is evidence of a certification. A certification is documented on a certificate.

Since it seams to have some importance to you, since the document that the Obama published on the internet says it is BOTH a Certificate AND a Certification, then it is BOTH a Certification of Live Birth AND a Certificate of Live Birth.

Because the "Certification of Live Birth" is documented on a "Certificate of Live Birth".

The information exists on a piece of paper in the Archive Vaults of the State of Hawai'i. The document released by Obama is a Legally Certified copy of the relevant information on that document.

Don’t be more ridiculous than is necessary. The ‘original’ is the original paper long form birth certificate….not a computer generated certification of live birth. If you do not have the mental capacity to even grasp that simple fact then it is no wonder that you are so very confused.

You are the one being ridiculous.

The 'original' being spoken of here is the physical piece of paper which is the legally certified copy of the relevant information from the piece of paper in the archive vault. They are using 'original' here in opposition to 'photocopy' or 'computer image as posted on the internet'.

She is certifying that contents of the certificate are an accurate and true copy of the information on that vault document and under Hawai'i State Law (and therefor the Law of the United States of America, and International Law) is valid for all legal purposes where a Birth Certificate is required. There is no secret code going on here.

She is not speaking at all about the computer generated image that appeared on Factcheck, which you allude to. She is not certifying that the contents of the certification of live birth, computer generated image that appeared on Factcheck is accurate or a copy, whether true or not of the original certificate held on file. In fact I believe they said they could not verify what that image was at all. What she is saying is that they hold the original vital records. What that original says is anyone’s guess.

You are correct. She is NOT speaking about the computer generated image. She is speaking of the original piece of paper from which the computer generated image was scanned. Nobody is saying anything about the scan being a certified copy. The certified copy is the PIECE OF PAPER containing the raised seal, inked signature, and printed on official Secure paper.

It is not too late to do anything about it, unless martial law is declared first. Where is any evidence at all that this was answered to the satisfaction of anyone? Where is your evidence that all states ever saw any evidence that he was eligible, or indeed that anyone saw evidence? The fact that not one senator or congressman challenged the eligibility is meaningless. If I stole your car and 300 witnesses chose not to incriminate me in that crime, that would not mean that I had not stolen the car. What it might mean is firstly that none of them do their jobs properly, which is highly likely looking at them all playing patience on their computers. And secondly that their continued success depends on their popularity. That popularity would have been severely harmed as all the idiots cried racist at them.

Yes is it too late. All opportunities to challange his eligibility have passed. The evidence has been linked before: Pelosi examined the Birth Certificate and certified his eligability to all 50 states and the territories. That Congress didn't challenge the eligibility is not meaningless: they are the Constitutional "Gatekeeper" on the issue; only one Senator and one Congressman are required to sign an objection, yet not one of the many strident critics were doubtful of his eligibility in spite of that 'huge' petition. It sure would have been a bit more effective, and less damaging to his image with the voters than shouting at him and calling him a liar from the floor of the House during a 'State of the Union' address, don't you think?

[edit on 29/10/2009 by rnaa]

reply to post by rnaa


If only they allowed swearing on this site.

The 'original' being spoken of here is the physical piece of paper which is the legally certified copy of the relevant information from the piece of paper in the archive vault. They are using 'original' here in opposition to 'photocopy' or 'computer image as posted on the internet'.

Nobody on this earth apart from Fukino and Okubo, if they are being truthful, has ever seen the original, or a copy, or a copy of a copy, or a copy of a copy of a copy made into a jpeg and put anywhere at all, of the ORIGINAL long form paper birth certificate. Nobody.
The ORIGINAL is the paper long form certificate held in the vault. Nobody has seen this long form certificate. Not you, not Factcheck and not Santa Claus.

Pelosi examined the Birth Certificate and certified his eligability to all 50 states and the territories.

Dear God in heaven, give me strength. NO, Pelosi did NOT examine his birth certificate. No, Pelosi did not certify his CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility to any other state than Hawaii.

It sure would have been a bit more effective, and less damaging to his image with the voters than shouting at him and calling him a liar from the floor of the House during a 'State of the Union' address, don't you think?

I think ‘Liar’ is very restrained.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
Nobody on this earth apart from Fukino and Okubo, if they are being truthful, has ever seen the original, or a copy, or a copy of a copy, or a copy of a copy of a copy made into a jpeg and put anywhere at all, of the ORIGINAL long form paper birth certificate. Nobody.
The ORIGINAL is the paper long form certificate held in the vault. Nobody has seen this long form certificate. Not you, not Factcheck and not Santa Claus.

Oneclickaway, that's it exactly! Those are the only people to ever see it, which is why I find it so entertaining that the "experts" in here who have never seen the document are telling us what's on it.

They don't even know what hospital Obama was born at or if he was even born in a hospital, all of which would be on that source document, yet they say they know where Obama was born. They don't.

Are the officials telling us the truth that Obama was born in Honolulu? Well it's their job to be truthful, so I hope they are, but if you have a piece of paper that proves something, and you have somebody's word telling you what is on the piece of paper, it is always better proof to go to the source document, than to take somebody's word for what's on it.

So what the whole argument boils down to is whether we (and I am including factcheck.org in that we) should have a right to see the source document or not. I think we should be allowed to see it, some people think we shouldn't be allowed to see it. Ultimately the court will have to decide who prevails, but the courts are a place where the difference in the quality of evidence is understood and appreciated, between seeing a source document, and accepting someone's testimony about what is on a document.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What part of the 4th Amendment do you not understand?

I got a question, what hospital was George W. Bush born in? What doctor oversaw the birth? How about Clinton? Bush Sr.? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? Etc?

reply to post by whatukno

So looking at the short form is not an invasion of privacy but looking at the long form is an invasion of privacy?

Besides I didn't even bring up search and seizure, I think Obama should authorize its release voluntarily because he campaigned on promise of transparency, didn't he?

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So looking at the short form is not an invasion of privacy but looking at the long form is an invasion of privacy?

He released the short form on the internet voluntarily. Why? Because once upon a time, this was a legitimate question. He released it in hopes that it would settle the matter. Did it? NOOOO will the long form settle the matter? NOOOO Why? Because birthers aren't interested in the truth, they are interested in ousting a man from office they don't like.

There is personal information on the long form BC, such as innocent people's names. Do you somehow have the right to harass the doctor who helped birth Obama? Cause that is exactly what will happen if this personal information is released.

God forbid if the doctor is dead, that would throw a whole new spin on the conspiracy. I can see it now, "Obama murders doctor to keep him from telling the truth that Obama was born on Mars!"

Besides I didn't even bring up search and seizure, I think Obama should authorize its release voluntarily because he campaigned on promise of transparency, didn't he?

If you believed that horse pile, I got a bridge I would like to sell you.

And yes it's an unreasonable search and seizure. Why? Because a verified certified short form has been voluntarily released.

reply to post by whatukno

And yes it's an unreasonable search and seizure. Why? Because a verified certified short form has been voluntarily released.

Hawaii dept of health, Fukino, Okubo or Santa have never verified that ridiculous Factcheck Internet image of a COLB as being genuine. How could they? They stated I believe that they could not say what it was.
Obama, or whatever his name is, has never released anything. His campaign may have given that image, or allowed that image to be copied from a piece of paper which is unverified and probably a forgery. Hawaii have only maintained that they have the original records on file, which nobody but Fukino and Okubo have seen.
Hawaii have been caught blatantly lying and have had to retract twice that I am aware of, so to blindly believe anything they say is ridiculous anyway.

reply to post by oneclickaway


Of course they have

Whatever keeps you off the streets man.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

What part of the 4th Amendment do you not understand?

I got a question, what hospital was George W. Bush born in? What doctor oversaw the birth? How about Clinton? Bush Sr.? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? Etc?

GW? that one i know as far as hospital... Yale-New Haven Medical , New Haven CT

yeah W was born in New England hmmmmmmmmmm

reply to post by vkey08


Yes, and Obama's main SS number is from CT...and he seems to have a strange affection for old man Bush. Maybe they have a little president factory out there. Well, one of his numerous SS numbers anyway...the one that has him as 119.

reply to post by oneclickaway


But wait! How could Obama get a social security card without a birth certificate? It's impossible!

Oh yes, Orly Tait's deranged pseudo list. The one from her "P.I." that listed a bunch of phony SS#s associated with addresses? Of course! But of course her "P.I." Had to be secret so Obama's death squads couldn't silence him.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

I got a question, what hospital was George W. Bush born in? What doctor oversaw the birth? How about Clinton? Bush Sr.? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? Etc?

What's your obsession with the doctor? I want to know where Obama was born. And in that regard, your question makes Obama look really, really bad, because we know where all those other presidents were born:


Richard Nixon – 37th President: 1969-1974

en.wikipedia.org...

Richard Nixon was born on January 9, 1913, to Francis A. Nixon and Hannah Milhous Nixon in a house his father had built in Yorba Linda, California.

Gerald R. Ford, 38th President: 1974-1977

en.wikipedia.org...

Ford was born as Leslie Lynch King, Jr. on July 14, 1913, at 3202 Woolworth Avenue in Omaha, Nebraska,

Carter was the first president born in a hospital:


Jimmy Carter, 39th President: 1977-1981

www.waymarking.com...

James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr., the 39th President of the United States, was born in Wise Hospital (which is now the Lillian G. Carter Nursing Center) in Plains, Georgia.

Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President: 1981-1989

en.wikipedia.org...

Ronald Reagan was born in an apartment above the local bank building in Tampico, Illinois, on February 6, 1911

George H.W. Bush, 41st President: 1989-1993

en.wikipedia.org...

George Herbert Walker Bush was born at 173 Adams Street in Milton, Massachusetts[2] on June 12, 1924.

William J. Clinton, 42nd President: 1993-2001

www.nps.gov...

William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, was born at the Julia Chester Hospital on the 19th of August 1946 in the small town of Hope, Arkansas

George W. Bush, 43rd President: 2001-2009

www.imdb.com...

Born in Yale New Haven Hospital - New Haven, CT

In fact, if Obama WAS born in a hospital (was he?), he would be the 4th president born in a hospital. If he WASN'T born in a hospital, then there are only 3 presidents born in a hospital, as listed above. So your question makes the absence of information about Obama's exact birthplace seem more glaring since we DO know the birth location (hospital or home location) of all the other presidents you asked about!

Do you see how unusual this secrecy about Obama's birthplace really is??? What an eye-opener. Which side of the debate are you on, anyway, asking a question like that?

reply to post by oneclickaway

Look, I understand you have a problem with comprehension, I really do. The reality is that no one on the planet other than Hawai’ian state officials needs to see that document. It is specifically their job to maintain the integrity of those vital records. All you need to know is that the information on the Birth Certificate is accurate and sufficient to establish his eligibility.

Maybe using bullet points will help you recognize the faults with the misinformation you have been fed.
1. A child is born in a hospital and the hospital records the particulars of the birth according to State law.
2. The hospital’s information is lodged with the State’s Vital Records Organization for registration and the hospital documentation is stored, in the appropriate State archive.
3. When a Birth Certificate is required, one is prepared by TRANSCRIBING the INFORMATION on the hospital document onto an OFFICIAL STATE DOCUMENT according to the laws of the particular State.
4. The OFFICIAL STATE DOCUMENT is CERTIFIED to contain an accurate COPY of the INFORMATION in the hospital’s registration document.
5. Steps 3 and 4 are repeated whenever another Birth Certificate is required.

Comments on the above items.

1. The information recorded by the hospital is governed by State law. The format that the hospital records that information in is governed by State law. The State may require more information to be recorded than required for Birth Certificate. They may be recording population statistics for example, maybe they need to know if it was Caesarean or Natural; whether or not forceps were used. I don’t know and I’m sure data requirements change over time. There may be statistics recorded in 1961 that are no longer required. It is extremely likely that eugenics information would have been collected by Hawai’ian authorities at some point in history. If that was still going on in 1961 it has no place in the public record.
2. The document prepared by the hospital is not a Birth Certificate. Only the State can issue a Birth Certificate. The hospital’s document is the DATA SOURCE for the Birth Certificate. Today, Registration probably includes TRANSCRIBING the INFORMATION from the Hospital document into a computer. This is still NOT a Birth Certificate. The document archive is not something that is accessible on a routine basis. Once the information has been transcribed into the computer, the State has no specific need to ever look at the document again. Since Hawai’i is subject to frequent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, I would not be surprised to find that their Archive is physically maintained out of state. Because transcription errors can occur when entering data into the computer, there may occasionally be questions arising about the accuracy of the information stored on the computer. On such occasions the question can only be resolved by comparing the vaulted Hospital document with the information stored on the computer.
3. Hawai’ian State law provides for virtually any transcription method that the Department of Health find effective, and, economical. In the past, this may have been photocopying the archived document, printing a microfiche image, typing it out, or copying it out by hand. But today, it is transcribed into a computer and this is still not a Birth Certificate, it is just information in a database.
4. The information, when transcribed onto a piece of paper, even if that paper is official secure paper stock, is still not a Birth Certificate. It is not a Birth Certificate until it has been certified. That is why it is called a certificate; ‘something that has been certified”. It is not certified until it has had the State Seal embossed onto it and the authorized signature attached. Secure paper stock is an extra security measure to guard against photocopies, but does not affect the data content in any way. The “certified copy” is not a copy of a document of any kind. It is a copy of the INFORMATION on a document.
5. The physical format that the Birth Certificate is presented when prepared by the state will necessarily change over time. Changes in the way the Birth Certificate is prepared, changes to State law, and simple economic pressures will affect the format and content from time to time. The wording on the document, the content of the document will change from year to year, decade to decade, generation to generation according to law and fashion and supply contract for secure paper. This process does not invalidate previous certificates nor make newer certificates less valid than older certificates.

The certification is not guaranteeing the QUANTITY of information on the document. It is guaranteeing the QUALITY of the information. There is no Birth Certificate that is any more valid than any other Birth Certificate. A Birth Certificate is just a document with certain particulars about a birth event that has been CERTIFIED to be an accurate copy of the information given to the State by the Hospital.

The document made available by Obama his Birth Certificate. The State of Hawai’i has certified that the information on that document is accurate. Furthermore, the State of Hawai’I has entered the archive and affirmed that the transcription from the archived hospital record is accurate, because of the questions raised about its possible inaccuracy.

Hawai’I certifies that the INFORMATION on Obama’s Birth Certificate is accurate. There is no higher authority to appeal than the Hawai’ian State Government. There is no document more valid or true than the Birth Certificate issued by the State of Hawai’i.

And please stop playing games about whether the images of the certificate are valid, they are not pretending to be Birth Certificates; they are images of a Birth Certificate. The images are proof of the existence of the document, and the existence of the intact security features. They are published for your convenience only. Image analysis is meaningless; the image is not the certificate; it is only evidence of the certificates existence.

Since that document is valid and true according to the highest possible authority and contains all the information required to establish the Constitutional eligibility of Obama to hold the Office of President, namely his age and his “natural born citizenship” due to birth on American soil, continued objection it is pointless.

Except maybe a Birth Certificate that states "Accepted by Registrar" as opposed to "Filed by Registrar" would be "more acceptable" or better proof

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Because unlike many here, I am actually here for the truth, not assumptions. Yes while I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Mars.

Just wanted to ask. Gotta keep your ducks in a row ya know. Now Obama from the document he has released was Born in Hawaii. Reportedly Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Because unlike many here, I am actually here for the truth, not assumptions. Yes while I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Mars.

Just wanted to ask. Gotta keep your ducks in a row ya know. Now Obama from the document he has released was Born in Hawaii. Reportedly Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

That's good because I'm after the truth too so that gives us a common goal.

Well thank you for using the word "reportedly" to accentuate the fact that we don't really know. I also saw reports about the Kapi'olani Medical Center. This white house press conference release from July 13 2009 did not confirm that:

www.whitehouse.gov...

Q: (Les) While you and the President were overseas on July the 7th, there was on the Internet a copy of a letter on White House letterhead dated January the 24th, 2009, with the signature "Barack Obama," which stated "The place of my birth was Honolulu's Kapi'olani Medical Center." And my question is, can you verify this letter? Or if not, would you tell us which Hawaiian hospital he was born in, since Kapi'olani, which used to publicize this, now refuses to confirm?

MR. GIBBS: Goodness gracious. I'm going to be, like, in year four describing where it is the President was born. I don't have the letter at my fingertips, obviously, and I don't know the name of the exact hospital.

Q Can you check on this?

MR. GIBBS: I will seek to interview whoever brought the President into this world.......

If the white house staff or Obama has ever confirmed the Kapi'olani Medical Center as Obama's birthplace, I missed that confirmation, which sort of adds to they mystery that they haven't done so. The name of the hospital shouldn't be that complicated a question to answer, and the fact that he still doesn't know it by July 13, 2009 when inquiries about Obama's birthplace have been raised for over a year seems incredible. He didn't say they refuse to release it, he said he DOESN'T KNOW THE NAME OF THE HOSPITAL!!! So add press secretary Robert Gibbs to the list of people who is telling us where Obama was born, who doesn't know. And given his comment about being in year 4 answering these questions, it's obviously not the first time Obama's birthplace has been raised, so I think a rational person would view Gibbs' response as most likely to be some deflection and obfuscation, to avoid confirming the hospital.

Originally posted by redhatty
Except maybe a Birth Certificate that states "Accepted by Registrar" as opposed to "Filed by Registrar" would be "more acceptable" or better proof

No. The validity of a Birth Certificate does not change because someone changed the wording of a field label on a preprinted form between supply contracts. Wording will change due to fashion, law, and even contract for supply of the preprinted security forms.

"date accepted" and "date filed" mean exactly the same thing in this context: the date the State took responsibility for the hospital document.

The documents shown are simply from different batches of preprinted forms. A different person, or group of persons, discussed and specified the wording.

Maybe the forms with 'accepted' were from a time when the document was physically handed over a desk from a Hospital clerk to the State archive registrar. Maybe the form with 'filed' is from a time when the information is transmitted across an electronic data link, and they decided that 'filed' is a more accurate term for the modern method.

Even if it is somehow more accurate to say that the information was "accepted by a human being" in Obama's case, the forms available at the time he requested this copy used the word 'filed' for exactly the same piece of information: the date the State became responsible for the information.

The wording of the data label does not alter that meaning in any way much less the accuracy of the information relevant to his eligibility.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Because unlike many here, I am actually here for the truth, not assumptions. Yes while I believe that Obama was born in Hawaii and not Mars.

Just wanted to ask. Gotta keep your ducks in a row ya know. Now Obama from the document he has released was Born in Hawaii. Reportedly Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women & Children.

That's good because I'm after the truth too so that gives us a common goal.

Well thank you for using the word "reportedly" to accentuate the fact that we don't really know. I also saw reports about the Kapi'olani Medical Center. This white house press conference release from July 13 2009 did not confirm that:

The key point you are missing is that it is 100% irrelevant.

reply to post by rnaa
Since you don't provide any sources, I have to assume that you're guessing about why those certificates have different wording on "accepted by" versus "filed by" Note that one of the accepted examples is way before and the other is way after Obama's birth date.

I don't know the significance of the wording difference either but I'm going to research it instead of making up an unsourced guess like you did.

reply to post by rnaa


And your source for that OPINION is?????

Here's some REAL Sources for you to investigate.....

Federal regulations in place in 1961 that provided the requirements to the states for birth certificates, including the acceptable values for "Race" -- enter "227" in the "Page" text box and hit "Enter" -- warning big .pdf file.

Hawaii statutes on the "FILED" and "ACCEPTED" on the COLB: -- see sections 11-1-4(d) and 11-1-28.

The statute specifically states that the date of filing is the date that a document is "RECEIVED" at the Department of Health office. Obama’s information was received or "FILED" on Aug. 8, 1961, according to his COLB. It was never "ACCEPTED" by the Registrar. Obama’s COLB is still being "MAINTAINED" -- awaiting acceptance by the Hawaii State Registrar.