Some people just hate birthers [Vulgar language alert]

I have to admit, I had never heard the term “birther” before. I don’t watch tv much, so I guess that’s why. Dictionary.com doesn’t have a clue what “birther” is either. So, whenever a word is used I don’t know and dictionary.com doesn’t either, I go to urbandictionary.com. They of course have it. According to them, birther has several definitions:

A conspiracy theorist who believes that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency of the United States, based on any number of claims related to his place of birth, birth certificate, favorite birthday, or whether or not he has heard the song Africa by Toto. “Did you know that Barack Obama’s parents concealed the location of his birth because they knew he would grow up to be President? What? Of course it makes sense, I’m a birther!” barack obama president birth conspiracy Brent Elliott, Dec 8, 2008

A racist sore loser who can’t deal with having a black president so they make up absurd conspiracy theories about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. These nutjobs actually believe that there has been a conspiracy going back 48 years to fake Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Apparently they had a crystal ball and knew that this black child (born in the days of segregation) would someday run for President. “Just ignore that racist nutjob foaming at the mouth. He’s a right wing birther conspiracy nut. gop racist bedwetter nazi klansman self-hating-gay, scoobydubious, Jul 16, 2009

A person who believes that Barack Obama has controversy and/or fraud surrounding his birth, though all theories have been either rejected or proved false. The birthers gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court – all 20 of them. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/09/birthers-get-another-lifeline/

A redneck born on American soil in a barn delivered by a drunken veterinarian who also performs abortions. Parents are both American citizens who are usually first cousins if not brother and sister. Birthers fought for their right to marry their cousins. hillbilly redneck birth conspiracy obama by billthecat, Jul 28, 2009

A knuckle dragging gutter culture warrior related to tea bagging citizens who don’t want to pay taxes because they don’t support our troops. “Obama’s parents were so smart they planned 50 years ago to have a baby on foreign land and get him elected into the White House so he can raise taxes to pay for our troops. It’s true I am a tea bagging birther” What were those tea bagging protesters complaining about again? Ohh yay they refuse to accept a black man as president and now have resorted to saying Obama can not be president cause he is an illegal alien. Sounds crazy? No I am just a tea bagging “birther.” teabagging obama birther conspiracy nutjob troop hater knuckle dragging

A term for the frothy liquid mixture formed in the vagina when a baby is born. It is a foul smelling combination of maternal blood, vernix, and meconium (baby poop) that drips down over the mother’s anus during the third stage of labor. It is thought to be a contraction of the words “birth” and “lather.”, “Nurse, would you please wipe that birther off the crack of my patient’s a$$? a$$hole dumbf*ck idiot racistfool by drsteevo, Jul 28, 2009

Jargon term, or buzz word used by mainstream media to discredit, and marginalize the legal battle of Philip Berg, a registered democrat operating out of PA. The term was most recently pegged in an attempt to divide, a bi-partisan investigation into the legitimacy of Barack H Obama’s Presidency. If you don’t like mafia leaders, and respect the rule of law, then you are a birther.

So, after seeing that list of definitions submitted by what has to be respected observers of the United States version of the English language, it’s no wonder Eugene Robinson at RealClearPolitics thinks so lowly of birthers as well. He’s a little more kindly, simply calling them “nutjobs” in his opinion piece entitled “The Berserk Birthers”.

Also beyond the Outer Limits of sanity is CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, who has been giving prime-time exposure to the “birther” lunacy — even while denying that he believes in it. Dobbs’ obsession with the “story” has become an embarrassment to the network, which has tried to position itself as untainted by political bias. CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein has pronounced the story “dead,” but insists that it’s legitimate for Dobbs to examine the alleged controversy, though in fact no controversy exists.

CNN untainted by political bias? Wow! Now THAT’S out there! That’s berserk! That’s something only a nutjob could believe. It gets even better:

Is this an orchestrated campaign to somehow delegitimize Obama’s presidency? Is the fact that he is the first African-American president a factor? Is it that some people can’t or won’t accept that he won the election and serves as commander in chief?

Maybe, maybe not. Trying to analyze the “birther” phenomenon would mean taking it seriously, and taking it seriously would be like arguing about the color of unicorns. About all that can be said is that a bunch of lost, confused and frightened people have decided to seek refuge in conspiratorial make-believe. I hope they’re harmless. And I hope they seek help.

Now, it’s impossible for me to buy for one second CNN ever concerned itself about being unbiased in this last election. I’ve got an entire thread on this blog dedicated to news media political bias, and CNN is all over it. It goes back almost five years of documented cases of bias most usually with documentation proving that bias.

So, here’s the rub I have with this article by Eugene Robinson, if the argument against something neither cites evidence disproving the original argument and uses obviously flawed logic to discredit the original argument, it means the person making the argument really never set out to make any real effort to counter that argument. Monty Python illustrated best in their “taunting Frenchmen” bit on The Holy Grail. Don’t concern yourself with logic, just hurl insults.

And, for Eugene’s enlightenment, the whole birther thing has been kept alive because The White House will not provide a legitimate birth certificate. Now, I carry one in my pocket. It’s not that hard a thing to do. If Obama was the least bit interested in putting this whole birther thing to rest, he would have presented it. As it is, he apparently doesn’t care one way or the other. That’s the boat I’m in. I could care less. But, what I don’t believe in at all is running around hurling insults at people who believe otherwise, either way. Sure, it sounds kinda crazy that some people are making the argument Obama wasn’t born in the United States. But, it sounds even crazier to me that some people think CNN is not politically biased. And, in the big scope of things, which is more realistically dangerous, people of no influence thinking their president was born outside of the United States, or, media people ignoring media bias?

“Here is a summary of Hawaii’s “state policies and procedures” in 1961.

In the State of Hawaii, back in 1961, there were four different ways to get an “original birth certificate” on record. They varied greatly in their reliability as evidence. For convenience, I’ll call them BC1, BC2, BC3, and BC4.

BC1. If the birth was attended by a physician or mid wife, the attending medical professional was required to certify to the Department of Health the facts of the birth date, location, parents’ identities and other information. (See Section 57-8 & 9 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).

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.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.” (Section 57-8&9) I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii (e.g. a driver’s license [We know from interviews with her friends on Mercer Island in Washington State that Ann Dunham had acquired a driver’s license by the summer of 1961 at the age of 17] or telephone bill) and pre-natal (statement or report that a woman was pregnant) and post-natal (statement or report that a new-born baby has been examined) certification by a physician. On further enquiry, the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications had probably not been in force in the ‘60s. Even if they had been, there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.

BC3. In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then, up to the first birthday of the child, a “Delayed Certificate” could be filed, which required that “a summary statement of the evidence submitted in support of the acceptance for delayed filing or the alteration [of a file] shall be endorsed on the certificates”, which “evidence shall be kept in a special permanent file.” The statute provided that “the probative value of a ‘delayed’ or ‘altered’ certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.” (See Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961).”

[In other words, this form of vault birth certificate, the Delayed Certificate, required no more than a statement before a government bureaucrat by one of the parents or (the law does not seem to me clear on this) one of Barack Obama’s grandparents. If the latter is true, Ann Dunham did not have to be present for this statement or even in the country.]

BC4. If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

Other than an official long form birth certificate (BC1) all that would have been required is that an adult attest that Obama was born in Hawaii. No questions asked.

I just can't see where there might be the potential for abuse or fraud inherent in this system, can you?

Perhaps I'm stupid

Good, we’re starting to agree.

I responded to this comment:

"A hard copy of the COLB Bambi posted online is good enough to prove American birth in any court or government office. I don't see why you consider it to be anything less than legitimate."

1. Obama’s copy wasn’t a hard copy but a scanned pic posted online. Per WND, the State of Hawaii hasn’t confirmed that they issued hard copy COLB represented in the online image.

2. You stated that Obama’s COLB “meets the requirements” for passport purposes (a government office) because it presumably agrees with the definition provided in the US Passport link even though it clearly states that some short form versions are not acceptable. The linked comments do not exclude any or all short forms from its definition of certified birth certificates nor does it specify which short forms are unacceptable or why. You must have amazing psychic abilities to be able to unilaterally rule Obama’s short form from that universe. Short forms are not always “good enough to prove American birth in any court or government office”, forgetting the fact a US passport DOES NOT PROVE AMERICAN BIRTH. IT PROVES AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.

3. The US Passport Office acknowledges the severity and scope of birth certificate fraud used to obtain US Passports. A short form computer generated abstract based on a fraudulent long form birth certificate (source document) would NOT be “good enough to prove American birth in any court” unless it’s a kangaroo court.

Next topic: DHHL requirements.

A hard copy of the COLB Bambi posted online is good enough to prove American birth in any court or government office. I don't see why you consider it to be anything less than legitimate.

We have to first examine what, exactly, a COLB is. (By the way, what I'm about to say applies to both the Kenyan certificate that has currently been in the news OR the Hawaiian certificate shown to FactCheck dot org)

Throughout the US and in most countries, when a birth occurs, a form is prepared and filled out by people who actually witnessed the birth. That form is called a Birth Certificate. The "original" of that certificate is filed with a "vital statistics" office, either at the county / parish level or at the state level. (In foreign countries, that office may be at the municipality level or province level). It is validated as having been officially received by an official known as a "registrar," whose responsibility it is to maintain accurate records of births, deaths, marriages, divorces.

Here is an example of a 1960s era Hawaiian birth certificate:

When it is received at the vital statistics office, it is entered into a "register." There are a number of different types of registers.

For example, this is an example where the information is transcribed into a ledger:

The good side of this type of register is that you can't just remove a line of data from it. The bad side is that in addition to the obvious risk of transcription errors, the original certificates could be lost, as they would be stored separately.

This is an example of a birth certificate that is intended to be directly bound into a register:

Please note that the left margin is labeled as a "binding margin."

The advantage is that you have the original document stored for perpetuity. In addition, once the document is bound into a volume, it would be impossible to "lose" the document without it becoming very obvious.

The disadvantage is that the size of the registry would needfully be HUGE. Also, it is very subject to fire and flood.

The Hawaiian Birth Certificate above would be committed to microfilm or (in modern times) scanned to a file.

A microfilm would have an image of each birth certificate (sequentially, by file number). In addition, since there would be thousands of image on a single spool of microfilm, there would be an index page to show which frame had which certificate. The advantage to microfilm is obvious: it is impossible to remove a single frame. In addition, it is relatively easy to make copies of entire spools. The disadvantage is that they are highly vulnerable to heat. It is not unknown for a spool of microfilm to be ruined because the lamp illuminating the film was left on too long, melting the media.

Scanned images are stored on either magnetic or optical media. The advantage is that a large number of images can be stored in a relatively small space. In addition, for those files stored on optical media, it is virtually impossible to surreptitiously alter the data without replacing the medium upon which it is stored. The disadvantage is that, until such time as a file is stored on optical media, it is child's play to manipulate a scanned image. There are countermeasures that can be taken (such as hashes) to reveal when such a document has been altered, but if the only copy of a file has been altered, there is no way that it can be recovered.

In this country, these records have also been committed to electronic databases since, at the latest, the 1970s. The data would have been transcribed into a database record by either a keypunch operator or terminal operator. The database could then be used for all sorts of useful queries and analyses.

The downsides to electronic databases are that they can be hacked, physical artifacts corresponding to records in those databases are detached from the records. With electronic health records, the data can be directly entered into the database, thus eliminating ANY physical artifacts. In other words, if somebody was to be able to surreptitiously enter an electronic birth record, a person would be virtually created. On the other hand, if a record was to be deleted, a person would vanish with no way to prove that he or she existed.

There are ways to protect the data, but if we've learned anything over the past years, any countermeasure can be overcome in time. (just look at the history of cryptography for very graphic examples of this. For one example, look at the Digital Encryption Standard. The DES algorithm used to be export controlled because it would be almost impossible to cryptoanalyze. Now it's not even considered secure)

The COLB is a computer generated form corresponding to a record in the vital statistics database. It is certified to indicate that it is an accurate record of what is in that database. It does nothing more nor less than that. It does NOT indicate that the person certifying the document has examined the physical artifact that corresponded to the database record.

The Kenyan document, assuming that it was authentic, is no more than the COLB: It is a (in this case) typewritten document that corresponds to a record in a physical register. It is certified to indicate that the information on the document corresponds to the information in the physical registry. (Of course, if the document is a forgery, then it's obvious that none of the above is true)

So what's the difference?

With the Hawaiian document, nobody would ever need to see the physical artifact (the source document) that was used to create the database record. With the Kenyan document, the actual physical artifact would have been used to create the certified copy.

A number of FReepers have documented that there were very loose standards on what would be accepted as a source document to create a vital record in Hawaii. I do not have enough direct knowledge or patience to recount them here.

I would, in summary, want to have four questions answered by a Registrar in Hawaii to make me somewhat satisfied with the Hawaiian COLB:

What was the source document used to create the vital statistics database record used to generate this COLB?
Have you seen either the original source document, a microfilmed image of the source document, or a secure scanned image of the source document?
What was the date that the source document was filed in your office?
Does this information in the source document (or a true image of it) correspond precisely with the data shown on the COLB released by the Obama campaign? If not, would you correct the database to reflect the precise information on the source document?
Finally, are you confident enough in your answers above to commit them to paper, affixing your signature and a seal of the State of Hawaii?

Until I either see the source document myself or have the above answered, I won't have too much confidence in the Hawaiian COLB. Not that I'm accusing it of being a forgery, but I don't have confidence in the data (garbage in garbage out)

Likewise, the Kenyan document (even if it were not a forgery) is meaningless to me, until it is authenticated.

Authenticated means not only to verify whether it is or is not a real Kenyan document, but to go to that register and compare the data on that document with the data in the register.

Sorry for the marathon post, but it is actually useful to know how records are generated (if you didn't know beforehand) to understand why people are asking for the long-form BC (i.e., the source document).

FWIW.

1. Obama’s copy wasn’t a hard copy but a scanned pic posted online. Per WND, the State of Hawaii hasn’t confirmed that they issued hard copy COLB represented in the online image.

There is a hard copy of which photos were taken and posted. I agree that the hard copy is what matters, but short of mailing a hard copies of his COLB to anyone who questions his birthplace, I don't see what else he could do besides post photos of it.

2. You stated that Obama’s COLB “meets the requirements” for passport purposes (a government office) because it presumably agrees with the definition provided in the US Passport

Not presumablely. Definitely. The passport office lays out cystal clear requirments for a birth certificate, and the COLB Obama posted meets all of them.

even though it clearly states that some short form versions are not acceptable. The linked comments do not exclude any or all short forms from its definition of certified birth certificates nor does it specify which short forms are unacceptable or why.

It's obvious from the context that some short forms are not acceptable because they do not meet the requirements stated in the same paragraph. Duh.

Short forms are not always “good enough to prove American birth in any court or government office”,

I never said they were. It's obvious from the wording of the state department that any birth certificate, whether short or long form, is good enough provided it meets the specified cretiera, namely, 1)a raised seal, 2) registrar's signature and 3) original document was filed with registrar within a year of birth.

forgetting the fact a US passport DOES NOT PROVE AMERICAN BIRTH. IT PROVES AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP.

Are you stupid or are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course a passport doesn't prove American birth. However, if a brith certificate is being used to obtain a passport, then the passport is being granted on the basis of an American birth. Duh.

A short form computer generated abstract based on a fraudulent long form birth certificate (source document) would NOT be “good enough to prove American birth in any court” unless it’s a kangaroo court.

No, but if someone presents a short form birth certificate, the court accepts it as proof absent evidence of fraud. In other words, if you want to say the short form is not good enough, you have to prove there was fraud.

And no, the court isn't going to grant you access to state vital records (such as the original BC) just because you allege fraud and want to go on a fishing expedition. You have to provide some evidence that there was fraud.

I have yet to see a single birther give any evidence or even any probable cause that there was fraud invovled in the registration of Obama's birth.

For you to think about.

Why an apparently educated woman blindly tries - operative word tries - to sabotage the truth and plant clear strings of easily refuted disinformation and use it to try to get us “hopefully naive” people to believe her nonsense is a sad commentary on your thought process and an insult to our intelligence and to our knowledge of facts on both sides of the issue.

As bad as the effort to make every Obama healthcare “dissident” a MOBSTER, wihtout even knowing that Democrats are also turning and protesting against it.

When Judge Carter holds a trial (which also shoots down your claim there is no one with standing, or a judge who will take the case to trial) and the evidence brings in a verdict that Obama has no eligibility to be in the White House, then I expect an abject apology from you.

Still a while to go as he gave the Obama side 60 days to respond to the service of the documents they denied was valid proof of service and served them on the spot and will neither accept delays nor procedural tactics to prevent a trial.

I would posit that you have found some fraudulent Points and Authority which you wave out there hoping it will fool someone.

You do not strike me as someone who hates our country but you certainly appear to support it being deconstructed and destroyed while it turns in to a clear Marxist-Islamist nation by what Obama is insisting on MUST happen and this basically turns us into a government owned and run system similar to the Soviet Union with a touch of Sharia law woven into it.

http://noiri.blogspot.com/2009/08/open-letter-to-obama-from-citizen.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.