“when I request a copy of my original birth certificate from Oklahoma (for a passport application, e.g.), I get a photostatic copy of a form that is filled with typewritten or longhand entries? And when I request a certificate of live birth, I get a computer-generated copy that resembles Obama’s COLB from Hawaii?
Rather obviously, they are two different things.”
Yes, there are 2 different things. A few points:
1) How records are kept and things you request and what you get vary state-by-state, so its not clear you can do in Hawaii what you can do in OK.
2) what Hawaii state officials are saying is that there is no “long-form COLB”. There is just a COLB (like your computer-generated form). On their website, it looks like there is only one form you can request:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html
3) People have posted original birth certs from Hawaii, and they are different from the COLB that Obama presented and other COLBs from Hawaiians.
4) Obama’s birth certificate was filed between Aug 4 and Aug 13, 1961, when his birth announcement occured in the Honolulu Advertiser. We know this because the newspaper birth announcement, this one ...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/obama-1961-birth-announcement-from-honolulu-advertiser0000.gif
... was derived from vital records office filings. Further, the
5) What this means is that there are precisely 2 records of interest:
- The COLB - which Obama has already shared
- The original birth certificate, in the state of Hawaii files/records
Thus, IMHO it would be better to speak of “The Original 1961 Birth Certificate” as the document/record of interest. That is more precise and correct than “long form” this or that.
Seems to me that's dancing on the head of a pin. The "original 1961 birth certificate" is perhaps more precise. But it is also more-than-likely a "long form" -- i.e., with more information -- compared to the COLB.
I'll escape from the argument now, if you don't mind. My own view is that, yes, Obama was probably born in Hawaii and qualifies for the office. On the other hand, the expenditure of money and effort on behalf of his campaign suggests that there is something on the "long form" (forgive me) which he doesn't want us to know.
All in all, it's a tedious subject with, probably, little satisfaction to be gained therefrom. But if some prefer to continue the debate, I've no objection to it. There is almost certainly something there -- though it may not be what is expected.
