Hawaii governor can't find Obama birth certificate

Originally posted by SilentKillah
Even still it won't stop... some other conspiracy will arise saying it was forged because the MD on the certificate has a Chinese last name and the first Chinese person recorded in Hawaii was 1968 or something similar.

I see so many posts predicting what would happen if Obama actually released his long form birth certificate. It would be interesting to see the certificate actually released so we could see which predictions are correct. But if it shows he was born at Kapiolani as the governor claimed, and is signed by a (non-fictitious) doctor, that would be the end of it for me. I'm not even trying to see if he was born somewhere else, since I think he was born in Hawaii. I just want to see what Okubo has offered to provide to Obama's campaign to confirm his eligibility, primarily because of the contradictory claims about not being able to release it because it was destroyed in two separate fires.

reply to post by SilentKillah

they conduct background checks. Look into the records themselves. Send people to talk to relatives, friends, neighbors, former associates. Had my clearance for 6 years and every once in a while I still get a facebook message from someone that I haven't spoken with in over 10 years saying they spoke with someone about me.

I have friends in the FBI and Air Force Intelligence as well, and you are exactly right. That is the corroborating evidence I am referring to. Since the birth certificate is insufficient by itself, it needs this background check information to back it up.

Do you really think they didn't conduct this type of investigation on our president considereing he can come to my workplace if he wanted to? A simple piece of paper means nothing compared to what they can find out by talking to those that you've dealt with for years.

I seriously hope they did conduct this type of investigation, but nobody has confirmed such an investigation. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of statements out there indicating that the DNC was responsible for this, or each state was responsible for it, or his political opponents have surely done this. There is a lot of passing the buck around, but nobody is stepping up to say that a thorough background investigation was completed.

If such an investigation was done, or if it became standard procedure at this juncture, then we would all be happy. We just need DOD, or Secret Service, or State Department, or somebody to step up and say that a thorough background investigation was done on this person before they handed him the nuclear arsenal!

I found an interesting related article here on the USAtoday site:

Hawaii governor wants to prove Obama was born there

Talk about friends you don't need, especially during a peaceful, news-free vacation.

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie has been spending President Obama's vacation eagerly talking with reporters about his crusade to prove -- once and for all? -- that the nation's 44th president was born in the Aloha State...

For Abercrombie, it's personal. The 72-year-old governor actually knew Obama's parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, when they were young university students in Hawaii. He told The New York Times that questioning where the president was born is "an insult to his mother and to his father."

I didn't realize it was personal, and he knew Obama's parents! That helps me understand his meddling, which I wonder if the white house really appreciates?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I see so many posts predicting what would happen if Obama actually released his long form birth certificate. It would be interesting to see the certificate actually released so we could see which predictions are correct. But if it shows he was born at Kapiolani as the governor claimed, and is signed by a (non-fictitious) doctor, that would be the end of it for me. I'm not even trying to see if he was born somewhere else, since I think he was born in Hawaii. I just want to see what Okubo has offered to provide to Obama's campaign to confirm his eligibility, primarily because of the contradictory claims about not being able to release it because it was destroyed in two separate fires.

I definitely agree... that I would like to see it come up as well. Not because I want to see it, but because I want to see if my predictions that this won't stop come true.

Maybe i'm misreading your post... but I don't think that he was saying that Obama's BC was destroyed. i think he was saying that his own was destroyed, therefore he could never show up on an AZ ballot if he were to ever run for president.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I have friends in the FBI and Air Force Intelligence as well, and you are exactly right. That is the corroborating evidence I am referring to. Since the birth certificate is insufficient by itself, it needs this background check information to back it up.

The investigation would occur regardless of what type of birth certificate were issued. The areas of the investigation would be the same as well. The person/people conducting investigations have to follow their protocol... it's not a checklist.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I seriously hope they did conduct this type of investigation, but nobody has confirmed such an investigation. As a matter of fact, there are a lot of statements out there indicating that the DNC was responsible for this, or each state was responsible for it, or his political opponents have surely done this. There is a lot of passing the buck around, but nobody is stepping up to say that a thorough background investigation was completed.

If such an investigation was done, or if it became standard procedure at this juncture, then we would all be happy. We just need DOD, or Secret Service, or State Department, or somebody to step up and say that a thorough background investigation was done on this person before they handed him the nuclear arsenal!

I'm absolutely sure that it was done without any confirmation from anyone. Security investigations are gone for these positions well before a person gets the job. The DNC would not have been in charge of conducting it. The states... maybe, but I highly doubt it. It would be Federal as he is in a Federal position. I'm sure it was done well before he took the office of Presidency. The White House (not necessarilly Bush himself) would have issued the background check as soon as he was nominated as primary. Possibly before that to be completely rational. Security issues are not anything that are taken lightly when it comes to any of these positions. The wikileaks person... different story, but I won't get into that. Seriously... if there were any issues, they would have come out before we was sworn in... and his campaign would not have been responsible for doing that. An entire different agency is used to conduct background checks, and they're good at their jobs.

My investigation must be re-accomplished every 7 years. There are other levels of clearances that are unknown to the public which I'm sure President Obama has one of them. I could imagine that they're either every 2 years or continually open.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I found an interesting related article here on the USAtoday site:

Hawaii governor wants to prove Obama was born there

Talk about friends you don't need, especially during a peaceful, news-free vacation.

Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie has been spending President Obama's vacation eagerly talking with reporters about his crusade to prove -- once and for all? -- that the nation's 44th president was born in the Aloha State...

For Abercrombie, it's personal. The 72-year-old governor actually knew Obama's parents, Barack Obama Sr. and Ann Dunham, when they were young university students in Hawaii. He told The New York Times that questioning where the president was born is "an insult to his mother and to his father."

I didn't realize it was personal, and he knew Obama's parents! That helps me understand his meddling, which I wonder if the white house really appreciates?

In the other post... he states that he was present when Obama was born unless I'm not remembering correctly.

"It's a matter of principle with me," the 72-year-old said. "I knew his mom and dad. I was here when he was born. Anybody who wants to ask a question honestly could have had their answer already."

www.nydailynews.com...


OFF TOPIC: I kept looking at your Avatar and thinking it was an aweful looking hampster... lol.

Originally posted by ArbitrageurMaybe, but I'm not sure conservative McCain would agree since he was the target of Keyes' lawsuit.

McCain was the target of Keyes lawsuit to keep face, nothing more. If he merely targets Obama, he'd be caught out with an agenda. Keyes never cared much for McCain in his eligibility issues, his main target was Obama. But like the other 70 odd birther lawsuits, his didn't get far at all.

If he was really that conservative, wouldn't he have avoided targeting other conservatives like McCain

Many conservatives actually do not like McCain, they view him as a moderate rather than a true conservative. You have many conspiracy theorist conservatives who do not trust him either.

Originally posted by SilentKillah
Security investigations are gone for these positions well before a person gets the job. The DNC would not have been in charge of conducting it. The states... maybe, but I highly doubt it. It would be Federal as he is in a Federal position. I'm sure it was done well before he took the office of Presidency. The White House (not necessarilly Bush himself) would have issued the background check as soon as he was nominated as primary.

Assuming Obama didn’t have a security clearance already related to work/committees in the Senate, then he would have been given one maybe even as soon as he announced his intention to run for President. IIRC the Secret Service is required to protect everyone that runs for office.

But he would have definitely received a top secret clearance when he became the President-elect, or perhaps even when he was the Democratic nominee, since candidates sometimes receive information or are made aware of matters related to national security.

And as I pointed out, the Hawaii statutes contemplate agencies inspecting the vital records on behalf of the registrant.

Give the Birt Certiciate some crystal meth and Dog the Bounty Hunter will find it.

/truestory

Originally posted by aptness
Assuming Obama didn’t have a security clearance already related to work/committees in the Senate, then he would have been given one maybe even as soon as he announced his intention to run for President. IIRC the Secret Service is required to protect everyone that runs for office.

But he would have definitely received a top secret clearance when he became the President-elect, or perhaps even when he was the Democratic nominee, since candidates sometimes receive information or are made aware of matters related to national security.

And as I pointed out, the Hawaii statutes contemplate agencies inspecting the vital records on behalf of the registrant.

edit on 20-1-2011 by aptness because: (no reason given)

Exactly my point. Thank you for making that a little more clear. Just to add a little more knowledge, there are different levels of TS as well (or should I say codings). It's known that there's TS and TS/SCI, but there's no way that one could visit certain areas with a TS/SCI. That's why i say that there's more and that the President must hold a higher clearance than the average nuclear weapons storage facility employee.

Originally posted by SilentKillah
I definitely agree... that I would like to see it come up as well. Not because I want to see it, but because I want to see if my predictions that this won't stop come true.

same here

Maybe i'm misreading your post... but I don't think that he was saying that Obama's BC was destroyed. i think he was saying that his own was destroyed, therefore he could never show up on an AZ ballot if he were to ever run for president.

Let me repost the fire stories:
Obama Birth Certificate Lost to Fire in 1972?

Responding to Hawaiian health officials, who confirmed that the President's 'long-form' birth certificate has not been released to the public, a spokeperson for President Barack Obama stated this morning that it is impossible for the papers to be released at all.

Through a spokesperson working for the Administration, the President now claims that his original birth certificate was lost in a fire in 1972. At the time, Mr. Obama was living with his grandparents in Honolulu.

"There was a small house fire in which the document was lost," the spokesperson said. "That is why the President has been unable to comply with requests to release it. While the President understands the concerns of citizens, he hopes that this will put the matter to rest."

That was Obama's copy. In 1972 he would have been about 11 years old and not in high school yet. But in his book "Dreams of my Father" on page 26 he said he had his birth certificate when he was in high school:

"I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms when I was in high school." So what birth certificate did he have in high school, the one that was destroyed years earlier in the 1972 fire? Or a replacement for that one, rendering his claim that his birth certificate was destroyed in a fire when he was 11 years old as a red herring if he had already got a replacement in high school? Does this add up?

Regarding the Hawaii copy of the long form birth certificate, this article is what I was referring to: news.sky.com...

Authorities in Hawaii have provided an electronic record of Obama's birth because the paper copy was destroyed in a fire which wiped out much of the state's archives.

So claims of two separate fires that come across to me as sort of a "dog ate my homework" excuses for why the certificate can't be released, and then Okubo says "no problem we got your homework right here, all you got to do is ask for it." and of course Obama never did, that we know of.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So what birth certificate did he have in high school, the one that was destroyed years earlier in the 1972 fire? Or a replacement for that one, rendering his claim that his birth certificate was destroyed in a fire when he was 11 years old as a red herring if he had already got a replacement in high school? Does this add up?

Let’s see, since you can request a copy from the Department of Health, is really the only choice in your theory that he is lying? How about, oh I don’t know, he requested another copy after the original — as in the one that was given to his parents at birth — was lost in said fire?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Got it. i must have overlooked that post... sorry about the confusion.

I can't take that story seriously at this time because I can't access it from my workplace. Secondly, it's a blogspot and from what I know about them, stories are always hit and miss.

Disregard... I see that the second source is from a news source. I still believe that it's turning into harassment at this point.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So what birth certificate did he have in high school, the one that was destroyed years earlier in the 1972 fire? Or a replacement for that one, rendering his claim that his birth certificate was destroyed in a fire when he was 11 years old as a red herring if he had already got a replacement in high school? Does this add up?

Let’s see, since you can request a copy from the Department of Health, is really the only choice in your theory that he is lying? How about, oh I don’t know, he requested another copy after the original — as in the one that was given to his parents at birth — was lost in said fire?

Yes that's one of the options, so if he requested a replacement then why would he say he couldn't release it because it was destroyed in a fire? What did the replacement look like? And what happened to that? Do you see my point?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Yes that's one of the options, so if he requested a replacement then why would he say he couldn't release it because it was destroyed in a fire? What did the replacement look like? And what happened to that? Do you see my point?

Yes I see your point, but what I was getting at is that the replacement is the so called “short form” birth certificate that the birthers had already indicated they didn’t accept.

edit: Look at the date of the article you linked with the comment from the spokesperson. August 7, 2009.

By June 2008 factcheck.org had already gotten and published the birth certificate Obama has.

It seems obvious to me that they were commenting on the original long form certificate, the one that was lost in the fire.

Originally posted by aptness
Yes I see your point, but what I was getting at is that the replacement is the so called “short form” birth certificate that the birthers had already indicated they didn’t accept.

Well, when Obama was in high school would have been before 1980, would it not? And they didn't start using the short form until after 1980, I think, though I tried to confirm the exact year they switched, if you know maybe you can enlighten me. All I found was a statement by Okubo saying the short form went back to the 1980s. To me that implied the short form may not have gone back to the 1970s which is the time period when he would have got the replacement.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And they didn't start using the short form until after 1980, I think, though I tried to confirm the exact year they switched, if you know maybe you can enlighten me. All I found was a statement by Okubo saying the short form went back to the 1980s. To me that implied the short form may not have gone back to the 1970s which is the time period when he would have got the replacement.

No, I don’t know.

You have no problem taking at face value a comment by a Hawaii official trying to recall when they started using short form certificates, which might have been over 40 years ago, but you don’t accept the unequivocal statement of a Hawaii Department of Health official who said to have presently, not 40 years ago, inspected the vital records and confirmed Obama was born in Hawaii?

Why do you find one comment more credible and authoritative than the other? Besides the fact that one demolishes your pursuit of this alleged conspiracy completely.

He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.

But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

what does that mean?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

what does that mean?

It means that Obama's handlers were really thinking ahead by planting that notation of his birth in the Hawaiian archives over 40 years ago. They must play chess.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said.

But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health.

He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate.

what does that mean?

edit on 023131p://bThursday2011 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

I'm going to pick at this now. Where does this source come from? I can't trust it if they can't get the time right. It says "Last updated at 3:32 PM on 20th January 2011", but it's now 3:21 PM. It's impossible so I can't trust this source.

reply to post by SilentKillah


Timezones
Timezones
Timezones
Timezones.

Good question.