Wednesday, December 29, 2010

A Definitive and Unique Guide to the "Birther" Challenge


Ah, the "Birther" issue. The Obama conspiracy issue that will not, and perhaps cannot, go away.

I've studied it at length, and it took me a while to puzzle it all out. But I have. And, if you'll grab an Hawaiin Ice and buckle in, I can guide you to a unique insight as to why you're wrong about what you think that you know about Birther lore. It takes a while to to unravel this story, but it's worth it. Along the way you'll find UNIQUE POINTS with insight you will only find here.

The Birther challenge is my candidate for the singularly most mis-reported story of the Obama campaign / presidency. It's frustrating to me for two reasons. Because the media continues to boilerplate the same incorrect information into every story on the topic. And, because the Birther critics - who pillory and disdain the Birthers as know-nothings - do not themselves understand correctly the case that the Birthers are making. Pitiful and frustrating.

It's not like the basic facts of the Birther's challenge to candidate Obama's constitutional eligibility to be President of the United States have changed much since he announced his candidacy more than 3 years ago. Not the core facts. So...

Why has the Birther issue stayed alive?
  • Because it smacks of a good conspiracy theory, even though it turns out that it isn't.

  • Because it's important. Eligibility to run for President of the United States is a fundamental issue that affects us all every four years. There are only 2 simple requirements to run for this office: 35 years old, and a "natural born citizen". Challenging a candidate's eligibility on these requirements is not only valid, it is responsible. Ask John McCain, who was challenged on this requirement the first time that he ran for President because he was born out of the country to military parents serving overseas.

  • Because President Obama, by his own admission, has an exotic life history for an American president. It includes, for the first time since the Revolutionary War founding days, a father who was a British citizen of another country (Kenya). It includes half of his family living in Kenya, with some telling stories of having seen Barack born in Mombassa.

  • Because the press has consistently misreported this issue, and thus inadvertently kept it alive.

  • Because the Birthers have yet to provide authentic positive proof that President Obama was NOT born in the USA.

  • Because the President has yet to provide CONCLUSIVE positive proof that he WAS born inside the USA, and in fact seems to be hiding records behind seal. After Obama's brief visit to Hawaii to see his dying Grandmother one month before the election in 2008, the Governor of Hawaii sealed Obama's birth records. Why?

Having said that, am I a Birther?

Well, no and yes.

No: because I believe that the Birther challenge is both fruitless and moot. Fruitless, because although it is most likely that the President was born in Hawaii I don't believe that we will get to see conclusive proof of that. Moot because the President is already two years in office, having been elected by a compelling majority of voters and the electoral college. He won. He's governing. This issue needed to have been correctly vetted before the election - which is a lesson for future elections.

Yes: because I believe that challenging a candidate on eligibility is a valid and required pursuit, and that the Birthers have raised a valid challenge that has not yet been conclusively disproven.

A simple detective story:

I approach the Birther challenge as a straightforward non-partisan detective story. I assume that parties on both sides have good motives, whether it is defending or challenging Barack Obama's eligibility per the Constitutional requirement. Let's start from a position of good will.

A BOLD statement up front:

From my study of the Birther challenge, I'll make these two simplified, unique, and bold statements now:

1. There are two relevant stories of the President's birthplace, one which allows eligibility and one that does not.

2. UNIQUE POINT: All of the evidence presented to date SUPPORTS BOTH STORIES EQUALLY!, and without conspiracy or intentional fraud.

There, I said it. Now, let's walk through it as a detective story.

The two competing stories of Barack Hussein Obama II's birth:

The two relevant stories of Barack Obama's birthplace go like this:

1: Barack Obama is born in the USA, in a hospital in Hawaii, and is a US citizen eligible to be President.

2: Barack Obama is born in Kenya, in a hospital in Mombassa and is not a US Citizen because of laws regulating citizenship that were in effect in 1961 - given that his father is a British citizen. The most likely way this happened was that the Obama's took a trip to Kenya to visit Barack Sr's family and was prevented from returning home in time to deliver by airline rules that prevented mothers from flying in the ninth month of pregnancy.

So, what evidence differentiates between these two competing stories?

Primary evidence - Birth Certificates, which we all understand:

We all were born. We all understand birth certificates from personal experience. We should know that there are two types:

Long Form BC, with the footprints. One vault copy for the Bureau of vital statistics to retain. One copy sent home with mom and dad. (Obama references this copy in his book "Dreams from my Father". He lists some items on top of a dresser, one of which is his birth certificate.) In 1961, a Hawaiian long-form "Certificae of Live Birth" issued by a doctor in a hospital looks like this, with the doctor's name and the hospital:



Short-form. If you can't find your original birth certificate, as I personally can't, you can order one from the state bureau of vital statistics. At some point the birth records were computerized, and you will be getting a computer printout called a "Certification of Live Birth", which DOES NOT list the name of the doctor and the hospital. It's legal for identification. I've used this form myself. In Hawaii for a birth in 1961, it looks like this:



Problem 1: 1961 law

It's complicated, and best explained in this report, but the law in Hawaii in 1961 allowed four ways to get a long-form birth certificate. The simplest was being born in a hospital and having a doctor fill it out. But, not everyone was born in a hospital. So, the law allowed for walk-in reporting of a birth up until 1 year old by family members.

Suppose, in story number two - the Kenyan birth, Obama's birth was reported by walk-in at the Vital Statistics bureau. Suppose Grandma "Toot" Dunham (the responsible one) took daughter Anne (the chaotic one) down when she got back home and reported the birth. "We live in Hawaii, and there's been a birth!" The two long-form certificates would be created. One vault copy and one to go home. The difference would be that they would list no doctor's name and no hospital name. That difference is crucial.

Problem 2: Adoption changes things:

You may not have known this. As an adoptive father of two, I do.

UNIQUE POINT: After an adoption, the original vault copy is replaced with the adoption version, with different information on it. A new long-form BC is issued to the adoptive parents. If the child later requests a copy of his BC, he would not be looking at the original information it contained.

Barack Obama was adopted when he was 6 years old and his mother remarried to Lolo Soetoro. Was his original vault copy BC replaced with a modified one? Possible.


But wait, say the fact checkers, hasn't Barack Obama provided a Birth Certificate?

Yes and No. In the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama presented the short form "Certification of Live Birth" pictured above. The various fact check sites (Snopes, FactCheck, PolitiFact) display it prominently and have judged that this settles the matter.

But it does not. Because President Obama has not presented the long-form "Certificate of Live Birth" - either the vault copy or the family copy.

UNIQUE POINT: The short-form "Certification of Live Birth" does not differentiate between the two birth stories. BOTH STORIES ARRIVE AT THE SAME SHORT FORM BC.

Without the name of the doctor and of the hospital on the document, you can't differentiate between the two stories.

Take a minute and examine the short form BC that Obama presented. Tell me the name of the doctor. Tell me the name of the hospital. Answer: you can't tell me that from the short form. They are not on that document.

Are they on the vault copy that the computer record was generated from? We don't know without seeing it.

UNIQUE POINT: The two stories CONVERGE from a birth certificate perspective:


Let's recap the two birth stories, using what we now understand about the BC's.

Story 1: Obama born in the USA

1. Barack Obama Sr. and Anne Dunham are physically in Hawaii when the baby is born.
2. Baby is born in USA hospital, in Hawaii. (One of two. Both have been claimed over time by Obama. Neither will currently officially claim the birth)
3. Doctor fills out long-form "Certificate of Live Birth" under way one of 1961 Hawaii law, including his name and the name of the hospital.
4. Vault copy goes to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Family gets a copy.
5. At some point before 2008, Hawaii's birth records are computerized.
6. In 2008 Obama requests an official BC and gets the short form "Certification of Live Birth", with no doctor or hospital listed.

Story 2. Obama born in Kenya

1. Barack Obama Sr. and Anne Dunham are in Kenya to visit his family and are prevented from traveling back to the USA before the birth.
2. Baby is born in a Mombassa hospital, with questionable or nonexistant record keeping.
3. Obama family reports the birth to the Burea of Vital Statistics by walk-in, which is allowed under 1961 law. Bureau fills out long form certificates, WITHOUT the name of the doctor or the hospital.
4. Vault copy goes to the Bureau of Vital Statistics. Family gets a copy.
5. At some point before 2008, Hawaii's birth records are computerized.
6. In 2008 Obama requests an official BC and gets the short form "Certification of Live Birth", with no doctor or hospital listed.

UNIQUE POINT: The stories CONVERGE at step 4! After that, you cannot differentiate between the stories with the short form. Only with the long form by determining whether or not the doctor's name and hospital are listed.

But wait, say the fact checkers, isn't there secondary evidence in the form of newspaper announcements?

Ah, the trump card that the fact-checker sites believe they are playing, but are not. This is the most misunderstood and misreported piece of evidence in the Birther story.

 Researchers have found a birth announcement in two Hawaii newspapers from 1961 that look like this:




Based on the contemporary birth announcements posted in two Hawaiian newspapers, the fact checkers aske these two compelling questions:

1. Don't they prove that Obama was born in Hawaii as he states?

2. Wouldn't there have had to been a large scale, impossible, and laughable conspiracy to go back to the papers and plant these announcements for the Kenyan story to be true?

Trump card! Case closed!

Well, no and no.

1. UNIQUE POINT: The birth announcements DO NOT prove that a live birth occurred physically in Hawaii. They only prove that a birth certificate was filed at the Bureau of Vital Statistics - WHICH IS TRUE IN BOTH STORIES. The newspaper announcements do not list the name of the doctor or the hospital, and so do not differentiate between stories.

If you go back to both stories where they converge at point 4 (Vault copy filed at BVS) and insert a 4a in each story it would be: BVS notifies newspapers of the filing of a birth certificate, and newspapers routinely print announcement.

2. UNIQUE POINT: No conspiracy to go back and plant the newspaper accounts is necessary in the Kenyan birth story. It is the natural occurence after a BC was filed at BVS, IN BOTH STORIES!

No conspiracy. No conspiracy theory. Only a small case of innocent fraud if the Obama family walked-in and reported a birth, as allowed by 1961 law, when the birth had taken place outside the USA. But, who could blame them. Wouldn't you want a US birth certificate after you had inconveniently been out of the country during the birth? They did live in Hawaii. They would want a US BC. And they might have gotten one.

Summary: What will prove or disprove the Birther case?

It is as simple as the Birthers have stated. As Joe Farah of WND has stated with his sign campaign pictured at the beginning of this article: Show the original form birth certificate.

The only way to differentiate between the two relevant birth stories - in the absence of Barack Obama presenting the family copy of the long-form certificate that he offhandedly mentioned in his book - is to see the vault copy of the "Certificate of Live" birth on file in the birth records office in Hawaii.

If there is no vault copy, we have a problem.

If there is a vault copy, and it does not list a doctor's name and a hospital, we have a problem.

If there is a vault copy, and it has been altered during the adoption, we have a problem.

If there is a vault copy, and it does list a doctor's name and a hospital, then the case is resolved.

So, the natural question is, why haven't we seen the vault copy of the birth certificate? As Chris Matthews asked this week, why hasn't President Obama done everything that he can to make that copy available for inspection to put this to bed?

I'll end this guided tour with three relevant news stories:

1. During the 2008 election campaign, officials of the records office in Hawaii gave a statement that they had seen, and could verify, that there were birth records for Barack Obama in their office.

UNIQUE POINT: While this was seen as conclusive by many, it is not. What is on the birth record? What does it say? Is there a doctor's name and hospital, or not????

2. A story in June of 2010 featured Tim Adams, identified as a "Senior Elections Clerk for Honolulu" who was leaving his job in Hawaii. On his way out, he gave an interview where he said that it was common knowledge in his office that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. This is not substantiated.

3. The new Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, has stated his irritation with the Birther challenge, and his determination to release more birth records to resolve this issue. To that I say: good luck with that. The previous Governor had them sealed. You will likely need the permission of Barack Obama himself to unseal them. I have not yet seen an indication that he will do that.

I hope that Governor Abercrombie can do what he desires to do and can get the vault copy of Barack Obama II's "Certificate of Live Birth". We all need to see it to be able to differentiate between the two relevant birth stories and put this issue to rest factually.

The Bottom Line for Me:

We're not likely to be able to conclusively resolve the Birther challenge to President Obama's eligibility to be President.

I don't think that President Obama can produce a conclusive family copy of the long form "Certificate of Live Birth". If he could, he would have by now. Maybe he lost the copy that he mentioned in his book. It happens. I've lost mine. Maybe the certificate was altered during his adoption. My boys' were. Maybe he doesn't even know the exact circumstances of his birth. Again, my boys do not.

And, maybe he cannot get the original vault copy released because of Hawaii or national law. I don't know - I've never had to try with mine.

Maybe the short form, insufficient as it is, is all he has and all he knows. It's entirely possible.

I don't fault President Obama for any of that. It's a complicated story, mostly out of his control.

So, I'm left with the conclusion that we are never going to conclusively know that answer to this important challenge that the Birthers have validly raised. And so we're stuck with a mystery. A simple but unsolvable detective story. Stuck with endless but fruitless lawsuits until President Obama leaves office.

That's my bottom line.

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Obama was not adopted by Soetoro, as a simple telephone call to the Indonesian Embassy in Washington will show (ask for the press officer), and while you are at it, ask whether he was ever a citizen of Indonesia. Answer, he wasn't.

For the birther myth to have any validity, it must show both of these two things: (1) That there was a real chance that Obama was born in Kenya; and (2) that all the information about birth in Hawaii is wrong.

The first is much tougher. Going from Hawaii to Kenya was an enormously expensive and risky trip in 1961. Then to make the trip, give birth, and somehow smuggle the child back to Hawaii without a valid US travel document makes it virtually impossible.

IF a person were born in Kenya, she or he would need a US travel document to get to the USA. That would be either a US visa on a foreign passport or the change to his mother's US passport to include him. One or the other would have had to have been applied for at a US Consulate in Kenya and granted before the child would be allowed to enter the USA.

If such a document existed, it would be easy to find because the records of the application for the visa or for the change to the mother's passport would still be in the files of the US State Department, filed under applications for visas and applications for changes to passports in Kenya in 1961. The Republicans were in charge of the US State Department until January 2009. No such document has been found. No such document exists.

Obama was not born in Kenya. He was born in Hawaii, as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows, and the facts on it were repeatedly confirmed by the officials in Hawaii. Obama has already posted a copy of the official birth certificate, the Certification of Live Birth, which is the only birth document that Hawaii has been sending out since 2001. Hawaii no longer sends out copies of the original birth certificate, only of the official birth certificate: The Certification of Live Birth.

For the Kenya myth to be even remotely possible, all these things must have happened. (1) Obama's parents went to Kenya late in her pregnancy despite the enormous expense and the risk. (2) They did this and gave birth in Kenya without any Kenyan document showing the birth or even that Obama's mother was ever in Kenya; (3) They did this without any photographs with the grandparents or other proof of visiting Kenya; (4)They made the trip and lied about making it (when most people who make these kinds of trips are proud of doing it); (5) they ran the risk of smuggling Obama through immigration, when this was illegal, and probably difficult to do; (6) they smuggled the child through immigration successfully; (70 they managed to convince the officials in Hawaii that Obama was born in Hawaii.

There is less chance of all this happening than of winning three major lotteries in a month.

Anonymous said...

Over on the Hawaii side, there is the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and the fact that the officials in Hawaii have confirmed the facts on it repeatedly, and the former governor of Hawaii said that he was born in Kapiolani hospital, as did this witness who recalls being told of Obama's birth in 1961 and writing home about it
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

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 confirmation that it is the official and only birth certificate that Hawaii issues

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574320190095246658.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

And here is the statement of a witness who recalls being told of Obama’s birth in Hawaii, in Kapiolani Hospital, in 1961:

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article137495.ece

Randy said...

Hello Anonymous. Thank you for the detailed comments. Several points:

Please read my post again. Your points are standard rebuttal points from the sites, do not address the central question that I asked, and rebut things that I did not assert. I took the time to write a unique perspective on the issue with unique points you will not find elsewhere. Your rebuttal, on the other hand, is standard selections from the fact-check sites - which have the story wrong.

I did not assert for example, that he was an Indonesian citizen. Nor did I assert that a foreign birth certificate was filed in Hawaii. Why do you rebut assertions that I did not make.

- As for whether he was adopted, by Lolo Soetoro or not, his adoption records are sealed. As evidence that he was, we have the school registration form that lists him as "Barack Soetoro":

http://j.mp/qb00G

...and we have a comment from Michelle that indicates that he was adopted by a stepfather:

http://j.mp/du8xWY

Do you not trust Michelle's assertion?

- As to the Hawaiian officials confirming his birth certificate details, read their carefully lawyered language. They confirm that they've seen a birth certificate. They do not confirm all that is on it. What does it say for doctor's name and hospital.

- As for the hospital: if he was born at Kapoilani, why was the original story that he was born at Queen Mary Hospital, and why do neither hospital make the claim today?

Governor Lingle did not see that the birth certificate says Kapoilani hospital herself. In the link you provided she indicates that she was out of state and calls an official back home who looked. Then the Gov issued a statement. If there is a long form 1961 form on file that says Kapoilani hospital, then let's see it! The short form that Obama presented does not say that.

- As to their being an original 1961 Hawaii birth certificate on file, I explained in my post how that happens as a walk-in as allowed by 1961 law.

Randy said...

To Anonymous: on the "official" birth certificate on the FactCheck site and it not being a forgery:

I did not assert that it was a forgery. Again, did you read my post closely? You are arguing the standard arguments that have been argued for 3 years. I am not.

I accept that the "Certification of Live Birth" short form on the FactCheck site is an authentic document issued by the state of Hawaii.

What I asserted, uniquely, was that it has insufficient information to differentiate between the two birth stories. Both birth stories arrive at this exact official document.

Randy said...

To anonymous: regarding the link to Fukino's statement:

Again, read her statement carefully. She only says that they "...have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures,"

Surely you've read by now the challenges to that careful statement. An original (1961) certificate on record "in accordance with state policies and procedures" of 1961 would have allowed a walk-in creation of the certificate, as detailed in the investigative report that I linked to.

She carefully did not say that there is hospital information on the certificate that she saw.

Fukino did not say that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

She merely said that she saw a certificate.

3 final questions tonight:

1. Did you read my post carefully with regard to the convergence of stories leading to the same evidence?

2. Have you read the extensive reporting that WND has done that already answers the challenges that you've raised?

3. Have you read the investigative report on the Western Journalism Center site that I linked to?

Randy said...

To Anonymous: last post tonight. But, since you took the time to post so many links, I read them all.

The last one with the eyewitness account, which includes a sentence that he was born at Kapoilani is interesting. Perhaps even compelling. But it's one piece of anecdotal evidence.

There have been other articles that listed his birthplace as Queen's Medical Center. Snopes originally posted that information, before changing it, as detailed here with screen captures:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=103306

The only conclusive proof would be to see the vault copy that Dr. Fukino said exists and to see what it lists for hospital and doctor. Show the vault copy.

More tomorrow...

Anonymous said...

A logical question. If it were shown that the birth certificate of George Bush was in error, would that mean that he was born in Canada? No, of course not, because for there to be a credible case of birth in Canada, or anywhere outside of the USA, the case has to be made BOTH that it is reasonable to believe that there was a birth outside of the USA and that the birth certificate is wrong.

You, however, do not address the ENORMOUS improbability of a birth in Kenya, or anywhere outside of the USA for that matter. Yet, for the birther case to be at all credible, there has to be an explanation of how Obama could be born in Kenya without documentary proof (except for an obviously forged "birth certificate" shown by a convicted felon), and in particular US government proof in the form of a travel document--such as a US visa on a foreign birth certificate or the change to his mother's US passport (which by the way she probably did not have in 1961) to include Obama.

Such a document would be easy to find, since it would be stored in the few applications for US visas in Kenya or changes to US passports in Kenya in 1961--yet no such document has been found. Ditto, of course, for other countries,

And, in addition to the massive odds against their travel to Kenya or anywhere outside of Hawaii in 1961 plus the massive odds of getting Obama from wherever (say Kenya) without a US travel document, the couple would then have to convince the officials in Hawaii that the child was born in Hawaii.

Turning now to your repeated claim of adoption in Indonesia. The authority on the subject is the Indonesian government, which can be called easily through its embassy.

You point out that in one (unsigned by the way) school application in Indonesia Obama used his step father's name. Well, sure, but that does not mean adoption. It only means that he used his step-father's name, and it doesn't even mean that he legally changed his name.

Re Michelle saying that Obama was adopted. No she didn't. What she said, when an interviewer whom she was obviously pissed at alleged that Obama was adopted, was: "And, if he was, so what?"

The Wall Street Journal puts the whole Indonesian citizenship/adoption allegation this way:

"What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?"

That puts your case in a nutshell. There is no documentary evidence that Obama was adopted or became an Indonesian citizen, and the Indonesian government denies both, yet you continue to give the allegation credibility.

Anonymous said...

Re: "Read their carefully lawyered language. They confirm that they've seen a birth certificate. They do not confirm all that is on it. "

Answer. You are referring only to the first of the two confirmations. That is the one that said that there was an original birth certificate in the file (and that itself is significant because in 1961 foreign birth certificates could not be filed in Hawaii).

It is the second of the two confirmations that uses the word, that the officials have looked at the document or documents in the file and that they VERIFY the fact on Obama's published birth certificate that Obama was born in Honolulu.

Here is the second of the two confirmations:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

You point out that the official did not disclose the name of the hospital, etc. Sure, but the short-form birth certificate does not include those details for the simple reason that it is a short-form birth certificate and supposed to be short. The governor, however, who did not write a statement out but merely spoke off the cuff, did disclose the name of the hospital--Kapiolani, as the witness also had indicated.

Re your comment that there had been a report that Obama was born in Queens Hospital. Yes, there was one wrong report, from UPI, and it did not even quote Obama's sister. It simply was wrong. Obama's sister, and Obama, have always said Kapiolani (as did the governor and the witness).







What does it say for doctor's name and hospital.

Anonymous said...

Re: "I explained in my post how that happens as a walk-in as allowed by 1961 law.'

Answer: You are in error about that law. Hawaii would not issue a birth document of any kind that said on it "born in Honolulu" (or any town in Hawaii for that matter) unless there was real proof that the child actually was born in that place. If there was a claim that the child was born at home or in a taxi, the officials would ask for the doctor or midwife, or the name of the taxi driver. Only if the parents claimed that there was no witness of any kind, that the wife had given birth alone in the woods, or on top of a volcano, would the officials have to accept her word about the place of birth.

We know, however, that there was no such claim in Obama's case. How? Well, there are the statements of the governor and the witness that he was born in Kapiolani, and there is the statement of the officials that the document in the files VERIFIES the fact that Obama was born in Honolulu. A document in the files that the woman claims to have given birth without any witnesses would not VERIFY.

Randy said...

Hi Anonymous. Why be anonymous? I'm not, and I'm arguing the "nutshell" side. :)

I appreciate the detailed discussion. Several points, which I'll take in bite sized pieces.

You said:

A logical question. If it were shown that the birth certificate of George Bush was in error, would that mean that he was born in Canada?

Well, let's be real world here. Half of George Bush's family does not live in Cananda, and no George Bush relatives claim that they saw him born in Canada.

Half of Obama's extended family lives in Kenya. His Kenyan grandmother says that she saw him born in Mombassa. That has to be taken more seriously than your hypothetical.

Randy said...

To Anonymous:

Turning now to your repeated claim of adoption in Indonesia. The authority on the subject is the Indonesian government, which can be called easily through its embassy.

I didn't say that he was adopted "in Indonesia". Again, you are rebutting assertions that I did not make in my article.

I said that he was adopted. I personally assume that he was adopted where Lolo and Ann met, which was in Hawaii. Any adoption records there are sealed, as are most of Obama's records on anything anywhere.

But your misstatement of my "repeated claim" brings up an teachable moment:

There are a lot of statements in the Birther lore which get misstated, misunderstood, and/or mischaracterized and then get endlessly repeated on websites.

Such as the claim that the birth announcements in the Hawaii newspapers rule out a Kenyan birth. I hope that my unique contribution in my article is to show that is incorrect, that both stories lead naturally to the birth announcements without a conspiracy theory. Yet, that claim gets boilerplated into every media story on the Birthers like it is a fact.

If we are just going to parrot links at each other, then we are going to endlessly recycle faulty claims.

Anonymous said...

Re: "His Kenyan grandmother says that she saw him born in Mombassa. That has to be taken more seriously than your hypothetical."

I am saddened that you have bought into the birther LIE. Obama's Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya. She said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii, and in another interview she said that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii.

Here is a transcript of the taped interview with Obama’s Kenyan grandmother just before and after she is asked where was Obama born. (
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/obamatranscriptlulu109.pdf

Quotes begin:

MCRAE: Could I ask her about his actual birthplace? I would like to see his birthplace when I come to Kenya in December. Was she present when he was born in Kenya?

OGOMBE: Yes. She says, yes, she was, she was present when Obama was born. (But this “present” was in answer to the question was she present WHEN he was born, not was she present WHERE he was born. Could this have simply meant that she was a member of the family, present in the family, when he was born? Maybe, but it is not by any means certain that she said that she had been present at a birth in Kenya. So the interviewer asks the logical question, where was he born? Was he born in Mombassa? And he was surprised by the answer, which was that Obama was not born in Mombassa; he was born in America.)

MCRAE: When I come in December. I would like to come by the place, the hospital, where he was born. Could you tell me where he was born? Was he born in Mombasa?

OGOMBE: No, Obama was not born in Mombasa. He was born in America.

MCRAE: Whereabouts was he born? I thought he was born in Kenya.

OGOMBE: No, he was born in America, not in Mombasa.

MCRAE: Do you know where he was born? I thought he was born in Kenya. I was going to go by and see where he was born.

OGOMBE: Hawaii. Hawaii. Sir, she says he was born in Hawaii. In the state of Hawaii, where his father was also learning, there. The state of Hawaii.

END QUOTE

A second interview in which Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that the first that she had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter from Hawaii is reported by the Tribune News Service in the Hartfort Courant, which describes how the Kenyan family received a letter announcing the Aug. 4, 1961, birth. The Tribune reporter noted an interview with Sarah Obama in which she said she was "so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S."

The actual quotation is:

“Six months after they wed, another letter arrived in Kenya, announcing the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, born Aug. 4, 1961. Despite her husband's continued anger, Sarah Obama said in a recent interview, she "was so happy to have a grandchild in the U.S." (
http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/world/chi-0703270151mar27-archive,0,2145571.story?page=4

This shows that the birth did not take place in Kenya, but that it took place in Hawaii because the family in Kenya had heard of the birth in a letter from Hawaii.

So, the statements of the grandmother certainly do not say that Obama was born in Kenya.

But, say that the old lady had really thought that her grandson was born in Mombassa. Is this proof of birth in Mombassa? No! You would still have to account for the lack of a US government travel document to get Obama from Kenya to the USA. (This plus the enormous expense and risk of such a trip.) The Kenya birth myth is a fantasy.

Randy said...

To Anonymous:

You point out that in one (unsigned by the way) school application in Indonesia Obama used his step father's name. Well, sure, but that does not mean adoption. It only means that he used his step-father's name, and it doesn't even mean that he legally changed his name.

That's true, and possible.

Which is why I've often asked this question: if he was adopted and his name changed to Soetoro, then when did he legally change it back to Obama.

Again, we can't answer that because all of his records are sealed. We change have Barack and Michelle's contentions that he was adopted. And we have the school registration that uses the name Soetoro.

Re Michelle saying that Obama was adopted. No she didn't. What she said, when an interviewer whom she was obviously pissed at alleged that Obama was adopted, was: "And, if he was, so what?"

That's not what she said. In the link I provided you, she says this:

"African Press International is supposed to support Africans and African-American view,” she reportedly said. “It is strange that API has chosen to support the racists against my husband. There is no shame in being adopted by a stepfather. All dirt has been thrown onto my husband’s face and yet he loves this country. My husband and I know that there is no law that will stop him from becoming the president, just because some American white racists are bringing up the issue of my husband’s adoption by his stepfather. The important thing here is where my husband’s heart is at the moment. I can tell the American people that my husband loves this country and his adoption never changed his love for this country. He was born in Hawaii, yes, and that gives him all the right to be an American citizen even though he was adopted by a foreigner."

Several references there to his adoption.

Bottom line: There are a lot of claims, some misstated and misunderstood. There is very sketchy documentation.

Which, again, is why we need to see the vault copy birth certificate to settle it. Why are you opposed to seeing it?

Randy said...

Sorry, I misspoke on the "nutshell" case. Read it too quickly on my cell phone. Thought you were saying that my case was nuts, which is not what you said. My bad.

Anonymous said...

Re the allegation that Obama was adopted in Hawaii. You base this on the assumption, which has no proof whatsoever, that there are adoption records in Hawaii and that they are "sealed."

The Wall Street Journal put it this way: "What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?'

IN other words you have no evidence, and because you have no evidence you say that records are "sealed." Well, if there were adoption records that were sealed, we would know at least that there were sealed Obama adoption records, and there has been no evidence of even that.

I am told that the former attorney general of Hawaii was a CONSERVATIVE Republican. Well, if he had thought that there were sealed adoption records, he would have taken some action to try to unseal them, or at the very least announced that there were sealed adoption records.

Anonymous said...

Re: "if he was adopted and his name changed to Soetoro, then when did he legally change it back to Obama."

Answer: There are no records in Indonesia, or in Hawaii for that matter, that show that Obama's name was legally changed. There is no shred of evidence that there are any adoption records or name change records that were "sealed." It is virtually impossible to keep the fact that a file exists and was sealed secret. You may believe that there is such a file, but the conservative former attorney general of Hawaii gave no sign that there was such a file.

"What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?"

Randy said...

Re:

How do you know what Hawaiian officials would or would not have done in 1961? Were you a Hawaiian official in 1961? Is that why you are posting anonymously? :)


It was a different time, with different laws. You really need to read the Investigative Report that analyzes in detail the way that BCs could be obtained in 1961. Have you read it fully? It's worth the read:

http://j.mp/b2GgC9

Let's say this: there appears to be an original 1961 long-form vault-copy "Certificate of Live Birth" on file in Hawaii. Agreed? The Hawaiian officials seem to confirm that. I'm asserting that it theoretically could exist in both birth stories, and that we need to see it to differentiate between the two stories.

The new Governor wants to release more, and this must be what he wants to release. What is the harm in seeing it?

A story on Huffington Post today falsely asserted that "Hawaii law prohibits the release of birth documents..." No, it doesn't. It prohibits giving them to you and to me. It does not prohibit giving them to the registrant, Barack Obama!

Which brings us back to Chris Matthews's excellent question: why hasn't Barack Obama obtained and released the vault copy for all of us to see?

If the vault copy says born at Kapoilaini hospital by Dr. soandso - case closed!

That's all the Birthers have ever asked for.

Why are you opposed to that being done?

Anonymous said...

Re: "Which, again, is why we need to see the vault copy birth certificate to settle it. Why are you opposed to seeing it?'

Answer. I am not opposed to seeing it. Gov Abercrombie is trying to change the law in order to show it. If he does, that is just great. If he cannot, perhaps because there are members of the legislature who think that it is unnecessary or Republicans think that it would be giving a special favor to a Democrat, then the facts remain that Obama has shown overwhelming proof that he was born in Hawaii--AND the Kenya scenario is laughable.

The original would show that Obama was born in Hawaii and it will confirm that he was born in Kapiolani Hospital, as the witness, the former governor and Obama and his sister have all said.

But, it is still unnecessary to show the original. The official birth certificate is sufficient proof, especially with the notices in the newspapers, the witness and the confirmations, and with the absurdity of the born-in-Kenya myth.

Randy said...

The official birth certificate is sufficient proof, especially with the notices in the newspapers...

I've explained that the notices in the newspapers happen under both birth scenarios. Would you at least give me credit for that unique insight?

Once the birth certificate if filed at Bureau of Vital Statistics (or whatever it's called in Hawaii), either through a hospital birth or a walk-in report, what happens next? Why doesn't any smart reporter ever ask that question as a simple detective story?

What happens next is that the BVS reports the filing to the newspapers, and the announcements get printed. The announcements are not proof of a physical Hawaiian birth. They are proof of a document being filed with BVS.

Is there no one who can get that distinction! Not one reporter? Not one pundit? No one?

Let me say it again: the newspaper announcements are the logical next step after the creation of a birth certificate and filing with BVS under both birthplace scenarios, properly understood.

Someone please just acknowledge that fact.

Randy said...

Answer. I am not opposed to seeing it. Gov Abercrombie is trying to change the law in order to show it.

Gov Abercrombie does not have to change the law for us to see it.

The registrant, Barack Obama, can get to it under current law. You and I can't. Obama can. Why doesn't he.

Since he was willing to post the short form, why isn't he willing to post the long form?

Why doesn't he just say "Hey, I made a good faith effort, I posted the official copy that was supplied to me when I requested one. But, I can see that it does not display the hospital and doctor's name as some are asking for. The long form on file does. I've obtained it, and here it is. Now shut up."

That would work. It's simple. Why doesn't he do that?

Why aren't you asking him to do that?

Why are Obama supporters cheering on Gov Abercrombie in changing the law instead of just asking President Obama to obtain and display the vault copy, as the Birthers have been asking all along?

Why go through all of these websites and links and interviews and he saids and she saids and theoreticals etc. when the President can just obtain and display the vault copy?

Anonymous said...

Re: "The registrant, Barack Obama, can get to it under current law. You and I can't. Obama can. Why doesn't he."

No, all he can get is the official birth certificate. The original birth certificate is not sent to anyone anymore.

Anonymous said...

Re: The announcements allegedly being generated by a "walk in."

You are wrong to say that you could get a birth certificate in Hawaii that said on it "born in Honolulu" with a simple "walk in"--meaning without actual proof that the child was born in Honolulu. The officials demanded proof, such as the hospital document (which we know was the case with Obama since the governor of Hawaii and the witness both said Kapiolani). Or, if the birth had taken place outside of a hospital, they demanded a witness, such as a doctor or midwife or the taxi driver.

So, since a birth certificate that says on it "born in Honolulu" could not come from a walk in, the notice that was generated by the department of vital records could ONLY have been generated by a confirmed birth IN Hawaii. This 1961 evidence confirms the later evidence of the witness, the officials and the governor of Hawaii.

And, there is still not a shred of evidence that Obama was born anywhere else than Hawaii, and the Kenya story is particularly stupid.

Anonymous said...

Re: "There is no shame in being adopted by a stepfather."

Answer: That statement does not say that Obama was adopted. It says that if he were adopted, or anyone were, there is no shame in it--which is true by the way. So this is like saying: "So what if he were."

It is certainly not evidence of adoption, and there are no records of adoption in Hawaii or Kenya, and not a shred of evidence that any adoption files related to Obama were sealed.

"What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?"

Anonymous said...

Let's review. Obama's Kenyan grandmother never said that he was born in Kenya; she actually said in two separate interviews that Obam was born in Hawaii. There is no proof, and there would have to be, that Obama was taken from Kenya to Hawaii, and there is no Kenyan document showing that Obama's mother ever arrived in Kenya, much less gave birth there (the "Kenyan birth certificate" of Lucas Smith was proved to be a forgery long ago.).

The Hawaiian side shows an official birth certificate with the words "born in Honolulu" on it, and Hawaii did not issue birth certificates with a Hawaii location on it unless there was proof of that fact. It was not allowed to walk in and get a birth certificate with the words "born in Honolulu" on it unless there were witnesses.

Three officials in Hawaii have confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii. A total of four would have to be lying for the files to show anything other than that he was born in Hawaii.

There is no document nor any indication of the existence of any file sealed or unsealed indicating that Obama was adopted. There is no document or evidence of any kind that Obama lost his US citizenship or became a citizen of Indonesia.

Anonymous said...

Further to the allegation that Michelle said that Obama was adopted. It seems she never talked to API at all, API made up every word.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/AmandaCarpenter/2008/10/15/african_press_publishes_shocking_michelle_obama_quotes

http://mountainsageblog.com/2009/01/21/apis-michelle-obama-tape-scam-comes-to-an-end/

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/10/15/michelle_obama

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/171989/michelle-obama-report/byron-york

So, not only is there NO documents indicating adoption, and no reports of any adoption files being "sealed," Michelle never said anything about adoption.

Randy said...

Hi Anonymous.

Hawaii did not issue birth certificates with a Hawaii location on it unless there was proof of that fact. It was not allowed to walk in and get a birth certificate with the words "born in Honolulu" on it unless there were witnesses.

I think that you are making firm statements that you cannot back up with evidence.

How do you know what officials in Hawaii would or would not do in 1961? They lived in Honolulu. If they came back and said they had a birth, what is the birth certificate going to say for place - Chicago? It's going to say Honolulu on any walk-in reported certificate for someone who lived in Honolulu.

Have you read the Investigative Report that I've linked on the ways to get a BC in 1961 yet? Why not?

Have you read Tim Adams - form records clerk in Honolulu - statements on how people returning from overseas got BCs? Read item #1 here:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=245121

Regarding the adoption: it was not a central point in my article. But I think you're making too strong a case that he was not adopted in Hawaii. Like most of his story, there is not conclusive evidence for us to know one way or another.

There is a real lack of documentation in most of the Obama chaotic story. Even for the parts of his story that you think are ironclad - like his mother being married to Barack Sr - there's no original documentation. Jerome Corsi has done extrordinary investigation into the marriage evidence, and is concluding that they were not, nor did they live together at any residence.

We need to see the vault copy to see if there is a hospital listed on it, bottom line.

Randy said...

No, all he can get is the official birth certificate. The original birth certificate is not sent to anyone anymore.

You're telling me that the President of the United States cannot get a copy of the long form certificate that the Hawaiian officials have said is on file? Really?

As long as there is a long form on file, with the crucial information of the doctor and hospital name which could differentiate the birth stories, but it is not presented for inspection - then the Birther story will persist.

Show the vault copy already.

Here's the latest update on Gov. Abercrombie's mission to show more information, from the champions of showing the birth certificate:

http://j.mp/h3WHT3

It's a good read.

Anonymous said...

Re: “ How do you know what officials in Hawaii would or would not do in 1961? They lived in Honolulu. If they came back and said they had a birth, what is the birth certificate going to say for place - Chicago? It's going to say Honolulu on any walk-in reported certificate for someone who lived in Honolulu.”

Answer:

I have this from the PUMA Lori Starfelt, who tried to prove that Obama was NOT born in Hawaii, and found the contrary.

“In 1961, the hospitals would take their new birth certificates to Vital Records. At the end of the week, Vital Records would post a sheet that for the news paper to pick up that contained births, deaths, marriages and divorces. The Advertiser routinely printed this information in their Sunday edition. This is not a paid announcement that his grandmother could arrange. This is information that comes from Vital Records – we know this because this particular section reflects those records. They didn’t have a provision for paid, one sentence announcement that would be included in the Vital Records. At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife. Of course, they can apply later but that would noted as a different kind of birth certificate. I think TD has already addressed that. This information was received by Vital Records the first week of his birth = that suggests the hospital.”

Let me repeat: “At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife.”

The question to you is what made you think that a person could just waltz in and claim that a child was born in Hawaii and get a Hawaii birth certificate with a Hawaii place of birth on it?

ALSO, let’s go back to the second confirmation of the birth certificate by the officials. It said that the original document VERIFIES the place of birth. A “walk in” birth certificate, if such a thing were even possible, would NOT verify. Yet the officials say that it does verify. They would have to be lying for the original birth certificate to be a “walk-in” without proof of the place of birth on it.

So, we have historical evidence (which makes sense by the way) that officials would demand proof of the place of birth, and we have the recent evidence of the officials that the original document VERIFIES the place of birth. And, for that matter, we have both the witness and the governor of Hawaii saying that Obama was born in KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL.

Anonymous said...

Re: “Have you read Tim Adams - form records clerk in Honolulu - statements on how people returning from overseas got BCs? Read item #1 here:’

Answer: Tim Adams, like the guy who claimed he went to Kenya and came back with an obviously forged birth certificate, is a LIAR.
http://kaystreet.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/honolulu-city-clerk-debunks-new-birther-theory/

Re: “there is not conclusive evidence for us to know one way or another.”

Answer. When there is no conclusive evidence, a supposition is just as likely as the existence of the Tooth Fairy. This myth is created entirely by birthers without a document of any kind.

“What are we to conclude about someone who refuses to accept an official state birth certificate as proof of birth but expects us to accept utterly preposterous theories with no documentary evidence whatever?”

UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS.

RE: “We need to see the vault copy to see if there is a hospital listed on it, bottom line.”

Answer: No we don’t. The US Congress voted to confirm Obama’s election unanimously. There is not a shred of evidence that he was born in any other country (and remember, if he were born in an foreign country there would be a US visa or the change of his mother’s passport to include him to prove it, and there is NO SUCH THING). The Kenya myth is laughable, and the official birth certificate has been confirmed repeatedly by the Republican officials. IF the original birth certificate is released, as Neil Ambercrombie wants to do, it would show that Obama was born in Hawaii in Kapiolani Hospital, as the witness and the former governor have said. That would be nice. But the birthers would just claim that the original birth certificate is forged.

(And, I have already seen them saying that they plan to do exactly that).

Remember, to have even a reasonable story that Obama was not born in Hawaii, requires a reasonable tale that he was born outside of the country AND solid proof that there is something wrong with the birth certificate. YOU NEED BOTH.

Bunny said...

Regardless of place of birth, having a US Citizen parent entitles one to US Citizenship, so doesn't that make Obama citizen, even if he was born elsewhere? (I believe he was born in Hawaii myself)

According to the US State Dept, for persons born between December 24, 1952 and November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true [7]:

1. One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born
2. The citizen parent lived at least ten years in the United States before the child's birth;
3. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

Bunny said...

The current law for children of 1 U.S. parent born abroad is actually more lax. See 8 USC § 1401(g)

Randy said...

Hi Bunny.

3. A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.

I have to quibble a little with "regardless of place of birth".

First though, to your points. We know that Barack Sr. can't confer citizenship because he was a Kenyan with British citizenship. I've seen it argued online that Stanley Ann was too young to confer under those rules, but I don't agree. She clearly meets points 1 and 2. Based on her birthdate in Nov. 1942 that would put her at age 20 when BHO was born, which would mean that she meets point 3 as well, and can confer citizenship on BHO if he's born out of the country. Therefore, he's a citizen.

But, the Constitutional requirement he's being challenged on is not whether he's a citizen but whether he's a "natural born citizen".

Context is important here. The founders wrote that in close on the heels of the Revolutionary War against the British, at a time when many had dual citizenship - American and British. The founders didn't want someone who had dual citizenship, and thus potentially dual allegiance.

There is an argument that since BHO's father had British citizenship in Kenya that he conferred British citizenship on BHO, and we're right back in the founder's dilemma - a US President with dual American and British citizenship. A no-no.

I would also make an argument that Barack Obama's interference in Raul Odinga's election and his interference in Kenya this year in their election over their Constitution indicates that BHO has a dual allegiance problem - American and Kenyan.

It's complicated!

Anonymous said...

Re: "A minimum of 5 of these 10 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday."

Answer: Every US citizen who was born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. The original meaning of Natural Born refers ONLY to the place of birth. Under the original definition--the one that applies to Obama--a Natural Born Citizen is simply a citizen who was born within a territorial area.

An Ohio-born person is simply a person who was born in Ohio, and a Natural Born person is simply someone who was born in the USA. The meaning of Natural Born at the time was a synonym for native born, which was not a popular expression and was seldom used at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Natural Born was used all the time, and it was always used to refer to the PLACE of birth, never to the citizenship of the parents.

Therefore the age of Obama's mother is irrelevant, so long as he was born in the USA (and he was), and the citizenship of Obama's father is irrelevant, so long as Obama was born in the USA (and he was). That is why the US Congress voted to confirm Obama's election UNANIMOUSLY, because not one of them believed that Obama was born outside of the USA or that the age of his mother or the citizenship of Obama's father affects Obama's eligibility.

Randy said...

Hi Anonymous.

We agree. If he was born in Hawaii, he meets the Constitutional requirement.

If he was born in Hawaii. Which he likely, but not conclusively yet, was.

Anonymous said...

Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

The Wall Street Journal put it this way:

"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."

And that is without including the repeated confirmations of the Republican officials in Hawaii, the notices in the newspapers at the time, and the witness. And, the allegation that Obama was born anywhere else than the USA remains as laughable as the Kenya myth. Remember, if Obama--or any child--were born in another country, the USA would have insisted on seeing either a US visa or his inclusion on the US passport of his mother at the time. Either would have had to have been applied for in Kenya or in another country. Either would be easy to find, and no such document has been found.

The combination of travel during pregnancy (unlikely) birth outside of Hawaii (even more unlikely), smuggling the child to the USA (extremely unlikely) and convincing the officials that he was born in Hawaii (also highly unlikely) is required for there to be a reasonable case that he was born in any other country than the USA.

Randy said...

Hi Anonymous:

On the Wall Street Journal paragraph, well they're just misreporting it the same way that the MSM as a whole is. Have their reporters done any investigative work on this story at all, let alone as much as Jerome Corsi has? No. They just look at the same boilerplate misreporting that is on FactCheck and arrive at a faulty conclusion.

On your two paragraphs, they're frustrating me.

We're having a conversation here. I'm listening to your arguments and weighing them. For example: I've paused on the Tim Adams claim until I can read your link calling him a liar. I read all of your links and weigh them.

On the other hand, by saying this you frustrate me:

And that is without including the repeated confirmations of the Republican officials in Hawaii, the notices in the newspapers at the time,...

Did you have to reflexively throw in the notices in the newspapers again? It shows that you are not conversing with me.

I've shown in my article and comments, uniquely I believe, that the newspaper notices DO NOT prove what you think that they prove. They do not prove a physical birth in Hawaii as long as the walk-in reporting was legal in 1961 as it was. They only prove that a certificate - however obtained - is on file. The newspaper notices are arrived at in the same manner in both birth stories, and DO NOT differentiate between the stories. Period.

Please acknowledge that directly.

smrstrauss said...

Okay

Re: the newspapers. You claim that a person in Hawaii could just "walk in" and register a child. I have already shown that that IS NOT TRUE, since the officials demanded proof that the child was actually born in Hawaii.

You say that a "walk in" registration was possible. Well, show the evidence. I already quoted the PUMA Lori, who clearly stated that the officials would ask for a statement by the doctor or midwife if a birth were claimed outside of the hospital. (And of course, the birth was INSIDE a hospital, as both the witness and the former governor of Hawaii have stated.)

Your claim that the notices could be generated even if the child was not born in Hawaii depends on the ability to "walk in" and register, but there is evidence that this was not possible.

Therefore, the notices in the newspapers are confirming evidence that he was born in Hawaii, and they confirm the official birth certificate, the statements of the officials, the witness who wrote home about it, and the Kenyan grandmother--who said that Obama was born in Hawaii.

As for the Wall Street Journal not doing its research. It is better than a birther site that lies, such as the lie about Obama's Kenyan grandmother saying that Obama was born in Kenya, when she clearly said that he was born in Hawaii.

What part of the Wall Street Journal article(s) do you claim was inaccurate? It is certainly accurate when it states that the certification of live birth is the official birth certificate of Hawaii. I can show you a conservative columnist based in Hawaii who says exactly the same thing.

Randy said...

Hi SMRStrauss:

You claim that a person in Hawaii could just "walk in" and register a child. I have already shown that that IS NOT TRUE, since the officials demanded proof that the child was actually born in Hawaii.

You have not shown that is not true. You have merely asserted that it is not true.

I am not persuaded for two reasons:


First, because of the information contained in the Investigative Report which I've linked you to twice and asked you twice if you've read. You have not answered, so I will conclude that you have not read it.

It discusses 4 ways that a BC could be obtained in 1961, which he labels BC1 through BC4. This, under BC2

BC2. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.”

Based on that, a BC could be obtained without the evidence requirement that you assert. It might say "Honolulu" on it. What would it say under hospital and doctor's name?

2. We've all had experiences where evidence requirements weren't kept.

I ordered a take-out pizza this week, for example. The order taker offered me a discount price if I went on the website and printed a coupon that I must present when I picked up the pizza. My printer is broken, I said. No problem, she said, I'll just give you the discount.

When I arrived at the pizza place another girl waited on me.

"Do you have your Coupon?"

"No, I don't. Sorry."

"Hmmm. I'm not supposed to add back the price if you don't have a coupon."

"Sorry, my printer is broken."

"Oh well. I don't care." She kept the price at the discount.

We've all had that experience.

You're asserting that it's impossible that a walk-in could result in a Birth Certificate filing in 1961 when you know that is not true.

Once a BC is obtained through BC2 through BC3 in the report, the newspaper notices naturally result.

They do not prove what you assert that they prove.

We need to see the vault copy long-form COLB.

smrstrauss said...

Continued:

So, both the PUMA Lori and the official would have to be lying for the combination of the notices in the newspapers to be false and the document in the files not to indicate a birth in a hospital (which was Kapiolani as the witness, the former governor and the current governor all have said).

As for the other three methods of obtaining birth certificates in Hawaii, as I recall they all require a delay of a month or a year in filing them. Yet the notices in the newspapers show that there was no delay. They appeared within ten days after the registration of birth. It could not, by the way, have been a certificate of Hawaiian birth because that is always referred to as a certificate of Hawaiian birth, not a birth certificate, and the officials have stated that there is an original birth certificate in the file.

The allegation that Obama could have been born outside of the country and his parents or grandmother CLAIMED that he was born at home, without a doctor, and got away with it requires all these things to have happened:

(1) Obama's mother traveled outside of Hawaii while she was pregnant;

(2) She gave birth in a foreign country and somehow smuggled Obama into the USA without a US travel document;

(3) Despite the fact that she and the infant would have been seen on airplanes or boats, she or her grandmother was willing to make a blatant lie that the child was born at home without a doctor (which surely would have been in violation of some law--at the very least Obama Senior could have lost his student visa).

(4) The officials in Hawaii accepted the statement that Obama was born at home without a doctor attending --which the PUMA Lori says that they did not do without some kind of evidence.

(5) Two governors of Hawaii (a Republican and a Democrat) and the witness, and Obama himself in his book) all are lying about Obama being born in Kapiolani Hospital. (Obama's sister also said Kapiolani, it is only birthers who say that she did not. UPI at one time got the name of the hospital wrong, but never said that Maya had said it.)

For the birther case to be credible, you still have to account for the two sides of the coin: BOTH a reasonable story that Obama was born in another country--accounting for the lack of US government travel documents, and explaining why they would take such an expensive and risky trip. AND, the official birth certificate, the notices in the newspaper (There is NO proof that there could be a walk-in registration, and Lori says that the officials demanded proof of a claim to home birth), the witness, the the repeated confirmations.

This is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly all call birthers crazy. Because they believe, despite the lack of proof and the overwhelming implausibility, that Obama was born in a foreign country--usually said to be Kenya--successfully smuggled into the USA without travel documents, that his parents or grandmother lied about the place of birth (claiming birth at home without a doctor!!! A crazy and blatant lie), and that they got away with it.

If there were three or four different ways to register a birth in Connecticut, would that prove that George Bush was born outside of the country? Have we seen the birth certificate of George Bush?

If Hawaii changes the law or the regulations to allow Obama's original birth certificate to be sent out, or put out for public viewing, I would be delighted. But that is up to Hawaii. Obama does not have the original birth certificate and cannot get it--anymore than anyone else can--unless and until Hawaii changes those regulations.

If and when it does change its regulations, the original will say, as the officials in Hawaii have repeatedly said, that Obama was born in Hawaii. Unfortunately, some birthers are already saying that if the original is shown, it would be a forgery.

smrstrauss said...

For Obama to have been born in any other country than the USA requires the combination of travel by his mother during late pregnancy (unlikely because of the high expense and high risk) birth outside of Hawaii (even more unlikely), smuggling the child into the USA without a US travel document (extremely unlikely) and convincing the officials that he was born in Hawaii (also extremely unlikely). All of these would be required for there to be a reasonable case that he was born in any other country than the USA.

The willingness to believe that Obama was born outside of the USA despite these facts is is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly all call birthers crazy.

smrstrauss said...

Re: "First, because of the information contained in the Investigative Report which I've linked you to twice and asked you twice if you've read. You have not answered, so I will conclude that you have not read it. "

I have read the quotation from the investigative report which you published and it does not cite any source, nor does it quote anything. It is a bald, unconfirmed statement that a person could just walk in.

The PUMA Lori, who was trying to show that Obama was born outside of Hawaii (she was a supporter of Hillary) said quite clearly that a "walk-in" was NOT allowed.

She said:

"“At the time, if a child was born outside a hospital, the family would have 30 days to apply for a birth certificate and Vital Records would expect to see prenatal care records, or pediatrician records of the first check up, etc. They’d also want the notarized statement from the mid-wife.”

This statement also does not cite any source, but it is at least as likely as the unconfirmed "investigative report."

It is a considerable stretch to believe that Hawaii just allowed "walk in" registrations and issued a birth certificate on it that said "born in Honolulu" when the child could have been born outside of the USA.

But let us say that the "investigative report" and Lori wipe each other out, there is no proof either way. Then what is the situation? You would have to presume that Hawaii is like other states, and that it did not issue walk in birth certificates to persons and include an in-state place of birth unless that actually occurred.

We could, of course, send off an e-mail to the department of health of Hawaii including both the quotation from the "investigative report" and from Lori and ask: Which of these two is right?

Would you be willing to accept that, or would you just say that they are lying now, as presumably you think that they were lying before in their comments about the birth certificate being accurate?

In any case, unless the officials in Hawaii were lying, the original document in the files cannot be based on a 'walk-in' because they say that it VERIFIES the facts on Obama's birth certificate, and a walk-in would not do that.

I saw this published on another site:

For Obama to have been born in any other country than the USA requires the combination of:

(1) Travel by his mother during late pregnancy (highly unlikely because of the high expense and high risk of such a trip in 1961)
(2) Birth outside of Hawaii (also unlikely),
(3) Birth abroad despite the absence of any foreign documents or photographs showing either that Obama was born in a foreign country or that his mother was in the country at the time (highly unlikely)
(4) The willingness of the parents to lie about his place of birth (unlikely since it would be a crime to file a false government document, and the lie would be unnecessary since for most purposes naturalizing a foreign-born child would be just as good as his being born in the country)
(5) Successfully smuggling the child into the USA without a US travel document (extremely unlikely), and
(6) Convincing the officials in Hawaii that he was born in Hawaii (also extremely unlikely). ALL of these six things would be required for there to be a reasonable case that he was born in any other country than the USA. What are the odds of all six of them happening?

The willingness to believe that Obama was born outside of the USA despite the overwhelming odds against it and despite all the evidence that he was born in Hawaii is why Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly all call birthers crazy.