Replies

Okubo affirmed that beginning in 2001, all vital records, including birth records, moved to electronic formats.

Then why bother with a Certification. It takes no more effort to print a copy of the original, if that's on file electronically, than to print an abstract, since in either case an original physical document need not be located, retrieive, copied and returned to the file.

Excellent question.

What they used to do in the old days was print a bad photocopy of the original (often in inverse video because of the copying technology), sign it, and stamp it with the official stamp of the issuing agency. And that was what you presented at the passport office or wherever.

If they had a database of scanned long forms, they could continue to do just that. The only difference would be that the quality would be much better.

Why don't they? Well, they're ~~morons~~ state employees.

The only rationale I can think of for the current practice is that it hides irrelevant details and thus improves privacy. Of course, by keeping supporting details hidden, it also fuels doubt.

Then why bother with a Certification. It takes no more effort to print a copy of the original, if that's on file electronically, than to print an abstract, since in either case an original physical document need not be located, retrieive, copied and returned to the file.

Good question. If you look at this sample of a Hawaiian certificate of live birth, there are quite a few more fields of information available to track down. For example: if he was born in a hospital and its location, his mother's address and her "mailing address" at the time of his birth, signature and name of parent or "informant" who applied for the certificate, signature and name of the attendant to the birth (doctor, midwife, other witness).

If the birth record confirms he was born in a hospital, then a doctor and their signature would be recorded for review. If he was not born in a hospital, then someone had to affirm the specific information that was provided. That, too, could be reviewed along with any signature by the parent or "other informant".

Last year, two birth announcements from two Hawaiian papers were posted in the time frame of O's alleged birth. These announcements were supposedly obtained from information through Vital Statistics posted at the time. The address posted for Mr and Mrs Barack Obama does not match any known address for either Barack, Stanley Ann, or her parents. In fact the address posted was traced to another couple. If the paper's announcements are valid, then the information supplied on the original certificate of live birth is likely false. Could other information on that certificate also be false?

Obama added a piece of information about his birth circumstances in his book, "Dreams...." Obama indicates he saw relevant information pertaining to his birth when he wrote about being 8 pounds, 2 ounces, yada, yada, yada. That information is not on the certificate of live birth, but rather would come from a hospital/midwife/or delivering attendants that are provided with a "formal" delivery, not an at home incident. Such a form might include weight, length, doctor signature, nurse signature, foot prints, ....? Now if the "Certificate of Live Birth" through Vital Statistics does not confirm he was born in a "formal" delivery setting, there again would be another point of insonsistency.

At this point. I doubt more will ever be released to prove/disprove O's birth certifiate information. Dr. Fukino affirmed that she has seen the vital records and that he was born in Hawaii. She has not affirmed that the signatures are legit, that his address of birth is legit, or anything else on that certifiate is legitimate. She has said she believes what's presented, case closed.

Now as far as the "Natural born citizen" claim.......that's a matter of whether one believes the Constitution's natural born requirment to mean of two parents who are both citizens, which Obama cannot claim if his father is Barack Obama Sr.