DOH indirectly confirms: Factcheck COLB date filed and certificate number impossible

Butterdezillion | Feb 23, 2010 | Butterdezillion

[butterdezillion]

I've updated my blog to include the e-mail from Janice Okubo confirming that they assign birth certificate numbers in the state registrar's office and the day they do that is the "Date filed by state registrar".

The pertinent portion from Okubo's e-mail:

In regards to the terms “date accepted” and “date filed” on a Hawaii birth certificate, the department has no records that define these terms. Historically, the terms “Date accepted by the State Registrar” and “Date filed by the State Registrar” referred to the date a record was received in a Department of Health office (on the island of O’ahu or on the neighbor islands of Kaua’i, Hawai’i, Maui, Moloka’i, or Lana’i), and the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office located on the island of O’ahu) respectively.

MY SUMMARY: As you can see, Okubo said that the “Date filed by the State Registrar” is the date a file number was placed on a record (only done in the main office).

There are no pre-numbered certificates. A certificate given a certificate number on Aug 8th (Obama’s Factcheck COLB) would not be given a later number than a certificate given a number on Aug 11th (the Nordyke certificates).

There is no way that both the date filed and the certificate number can be correct on the Factcheck COLB. The COLB is thus proven to be a forgery.

[DJ MacWoW]

Unless, of course, you're an advocate of a police state, where folks can generate investigations against anyone they wish, simply based on "suspicions."

So now any country that enforces their laws and Constitution is a police state? LOLOLOL!!!!

[edge919]

Many a truth is said in jest, little boy.

[edge919]

Unless, of course, you're an advocate of a police state, where folks can generate investigations against anyone they wish, simply based on "suspicions."

Congress has a reputation for generating investigations, many based on less suspicion than surrounding Obama's forgery.

[lucysmom]

Since when is running off to some Swiss dude...

French speaking Swiss dude.

[flowergirl]

ok thanks....just hoping to think of any direction to take on the BC no matter how small that might help!

[lucysmom]

Unless, of course, you're an advocate of a police state, where folks can generate investigations against anyone they wish, simply based on "suspicions."

"Be careful what you pray for; you just may get it."

[DJ MacWoW]

Yup. It was worth a shot.

[EnderWiggins]

"All that only applies if the thing is presented in Court, and if it really has a raised seal and appropriate signature."

Well... in a court, or presented to the State Department for a passport, or stuff like that. Any and all official uses.

"Since it was only after folks pointed out the lack of a seal that, lo and behold, one appeared, hyper-visible, in the Fart Check photos, we can surely be forgiven for doubting the reality of that raised seal."

Actually, the raised seal was also visible on the original scanned image too. Not quite as clearly as when the certificate was held in better light by the FactCheck reporters, but it was definitely there. Even Polarik said so:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2040531/posts

" Not to mention other "irregularities, in the information, such as BHO, the father's race as African, rather than the expected (in 1961) "Negro".

Here's an even earlier Hawaii COLB that shows the father's race as "American." That's not a race. It's a continental designation. Just like African.



So, not so irregular after all.

[EnderWiggins]

"BULLSH*T! In order for Obama's "birth certificate" to be accepted as a legal "fact" — it MUST appear in Court. It NEVER has. It's only appeared on the Internet."

LOL... BP, you keep mistaking yourself for somebody who is actually important.

I can't believe you have yet to figure out that you will never personally touch a certified copy of Obama's birth certificate. The best you will ever get is an image on the Internet or in a Newspaper, and the testimony of an independent third party that the document is actually real. You've already had that for more than a year.

Even if the COLB eventually is presented in a court room, you will still personally never get aything more than an image and the verification of somebody you either trust or you don't. And let's not pretend that Birthers trust judges any more than they trust FactCheck reporters.

You already have in your possession all the evidence you are ever going to get, and you've made your decision that you don't believe it. Great. But you look silly pretending that you will ever get (or deserve) anything more than you already have.

[EnderWiggins]

Read the whole decision. That should quickly disabuse you of that goofy misconception.

[EnderWiggins]

Yawn.... and there is no evidence there that a penny of that was spent on Birther suits.

[edge919]

Well... in a court, or presented to the State Department for a passport, or stuff like that. Any and all official uses.

So what document did Obama show to the state department for a passport?? It wasn't the June 2007 COLB.

Actually, the raised seal was also visible on the original scanned image too. Not quite as clearly as when the certificate was held in better light by the FactCheck reporters, but it was definitely there.

Not on the scan posted by Obama at FTS. It was on a larger scan, consistent with what might happen when you scan a copy of a copy. The seal is so faint that it's not strong evidence that it was actually contained on a birth document as alleged. The flunkcheck.org photos have their own set of problems which again makes any claim of authenticity extremely suspicious.

Here's an even earlier Hawaii COLB that shows the father's race as "American." That's not a race. It's a continental designation. Just like African.

The problem with your example was that the race was declared in 1907 well before we had standardized race categories, such as were in place in 1961, when Obama was allegedly born. I still agree that Barak Sr. might have identified himself as African, but your example doesn't invalidate that Barak's race should have been listed differently.

[edge919]

So not only do you put blind faith that Obama was born in Hawaii, but you put blind faith that these lawsuits have been fought on Obama’s behalf free of cost??

[curiosity]

You’re not processing, curiosity. Nobody “forgot” anything. The response was double-checked by the director of the OIP, whose specific task was to find out if the answer was correct.

There's just one little problem: you have no proof that a failure to write "if any" necessarily indicates that a record exists. All you have is an OPI opinion advising the police department. It's not even an opinion about vital record requests, for crying out loud!

[EnderWiggins]

"So what document did Obama show to the state department for a passport?? It wasn't the June 2007 COLB."

Don't know, don't care. Since he got his first one as a small child, I suspect his mom provided them a copy of the long form. But whatever he showed them was good enough to get the passport.

"Not on the scan posted by Obama at FTS. It was on a larger scan, consistent with what might happen when you scan a copy of a copy. The seal is so faint that it's not strong evidence that it was actually contained on a birth document as alleged. The flunkcheck.org photos have their own set of problems which again makes any claim of authenticity extremely suspicious."

So... you admit here that the seal was visible after all? So there you go... one Birther lie debunked by you.

Thanks for confirming.

I hope you remember that Polarik actually had to use a pencil to highlight the seal on his comparison certificate because it also was too faint to obviously see when it was scanned. Hmmmm... might that have something to with seals being hard to see when scanned on a flatbed scanner? Maybe?

"The problem with your example was that the race was declared in 1907 well before we had standardized race categories, such as were in place in 1961, when Obama was allegedly born. I still agree that Barak Sr. might have identified himself as African, but your example doesn't invalidate that Barak's race should have been listed differently."

The problem with your explanation is that the "standardized race categories" of which you speak have nothing to do with birth certificates. They have to do with reporting demographic information to the feds. They placed no requirement whatsoever on States to use those reporting standards on their birth certificates.

Hawaii has already explained that they allow parents to self report their own race. And in 1961, Obama Senior actually was an African.

[EnderWiggins]

"So not only do you put blind faith that Obama was born in Hawaii, but you put blind faith that these lawsuits have been fought on Obama’s behalf free of cost??"

No blind faith necessary. Obama has provided actual evidence he was born there, and nothing exists to contradict it. That's not blind faith. That's prepondernace of evidence.

And of all the Birther lawsuits filed, we know that only three of them required Obama to employ lawyers. One of them was pro bono, and the other two were handled with short successful motions to dismiss.

That's about $5,000 worth of legal work. Total.

[parsifal]

But, the Wong court discussed the allegiance argument. They determined that the level of allegiance required was met by being subject to our laws, etc. That is why ambassadors, foreign sovereigns, invading soldiers, and Indians etc, weren’t NBCs. They may have been born here, but it was under “active, open, and overt” color of non-American law. For example, embassies are considered foreign soil for all intents and purposes.

That is also why Americans born overseas to military or diplomatic parents are NBCs. The jus sanguis prong of NBC.

parsy

[edge919]

Don't know, don't care. Since he got his first one as a small child, I suspect his mom provided them a copy of the long form. But whatever he showed them was good enough to get the passport.

Yes it would be interesting to see what was presented and what it says and if it actually matches the alleged COLB, which has still not been proven authentic nor sufficient to be presented for a passport.

So... you admit here that the seal was visible after all?

It was barely visible in one of the scans, but not enough to prove it was a first-generation scan of an official COLB. The scan is just as consistent with a fraudulent document.

I hope you remember that Polarik actually had to use a pencil to highlight the seal on his comparison certificate because it also was too faint to obviously see when it was scanned. Hmmmm... might that have something to with seals being hard to see when scanned on a flatbed scanner? Maybe?

Sorry, but I'm not convinced Polarik wasn't actually part of the Obama deflection team. I pointed out how some of his conclusions didn't stand up to scrutiny and he somehow managed to come up with evidence out of nowhere to counter the flaws that I pointed out. It was just a little too convenient to be real.

The problem with your explanation is that the "standardized race categories" of which you speak have nothing to do with birth certificates.

This is false: "Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and 'other nonwhite.'" "A comparison of the race designation in matched sets of birth certificates and census records from the 1950 registration completeness test indicates very high agreement for white persons and Negroes." Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf see page 231.

Hawaii has already explained that they allow parents to self report their own race. And in 1961, Obama Senior actually was an African.

I think it's possible. Again my point was that your example didn't invalidate what national requirements are. Hawaii may not have complied in 1961, but there were standard categories that were supposed to be used.

[edge919]

Obama has provided actual evidence he was born there, and nothing exists to contradict it.

Plenty contradicts it and very little supports it. Blind faith is the only thing faithers have.

That's about $5,000 worth of legal work. Total.

Right ... feel free to support this claim with something other than a blind faith declaration.

[parsifal]

I just checked my face and I have dribbled a little chocolate milk on it, but I can detect no signs of a KABOOM level explosion. Look at your excerpt:

““Every foreigner born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to its laws so long as he remains in it, as a duty upon him by the mere fact of his residence and that temporary protection which he enjoys, and is as much bound to obey its laws as native subjects or citizens. This is the universal understanding in all civilized states, and nowhere a more established doctrine than in this country.”

Yes. Obama was born here and subject to our laws. Should he have driven on the wrong side of the street, he would have gotten a ticket. He would not have been able to raise the defense that his poppa was British for a while. That is why Obama is an NBC according to Wong. Born here andsubject to our laws.

Plus, there is a little date thing you keep ignoring. An 1898 SCOTUS opinion trumps an 1853 anything. It even works from that point on to trump anything except a SCOTUS case which overturns it. Have you ever played Rook?

parsy, who has put on his safety glasses just in case you ever pull a rabbit out of your hat