How about some affirmative evidence? How about his Kenyan birth certificate? Or some proof that the registrar in HI was paid off, or is related to Obama, or is some kind of rabid Democrat?

Now, now. I never said that was my “argument”. I only said that your argument — somebody said he saw something — was lightweight and unconvincing. As for rabid Democrats, I have no idea. But Hawaii is a Dem dominated state.

I did finally read the FactCheck piece as well, and found it to be far from a 100% case. Producing a short form birth certificate stamped in 2007? And they even admit they never saw the long form. Whatever.

Anyway, RattlerGator is right on the uselessness of all this. Whatever the truth, the story is dead and will remain so, no matter what proof is found one way or the other.

How about some affirmative evidence? How about his Kenyan birth certificate? Or some proof that the registrar in HI was paid off, or is related to Obama, or is some kind of rabid Democrat?

You offer no reasonable argument.

Your argument is about the same as all the legal cases that have been thrown out of court. No argument so no case.

MF, Your contrition is noted and appreciated.

Vanderleun, I like you assessment of Michael Jackson: the Howard Hughes of Pop.

I should’a looked up the provenance of Factcheck.org.

I’ll do better.

Do you think Hawaiian bureacrats are completely incorruptible? Or not ready, willing and able to play partisan politics?

So the registrar was “quoted in the news” as saying he had “seen” the original birth document. Seen it, but didn’t produce it. Are we to believe there’s just no way that this registrar is anything but the most honorable and incorruptible of public servants?

Yeah, and the Clintons never told a lie either.

Do you really believe that the state of HI would provide birth certificates that say a person was born in HI when they really weren’t born there? That would be incredible.

The Obama birth certificate states that he was born in Honolulu. The statute you cite isn’t relevant.

Do you have an example of a Hawaiian birth certificate for someone known to have been born somewhere else?

The whole point of having birth records is so that years after the fact the date, time, and place can be established. This is based in part on the registrar and his ’stamped’ signatures certifying things. If you’re not going to accept the stamped signature of the registrar of Hawaii then there’s not really anything to talk about.

This whole argument was at its height a year ago. For me it ended with the factcheck.org link shown above. The registrar of HI was quoted in the news at that time as saying that he had seen the original birth document.

For those who believe that factcheck.org is owned by Soros I doubt the long form would satisfy them either. At this point if you want to say that O was not born in HI you need to provide evidence of that. Claiming that there is a lack of evidence that he was born there isn’t sufficient.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

Would have made a nice campaign ad for McCain. As if.

As for bogie wheel’s hope that a crisis does not ensue (assuming O is proven a non-native), I have to disagree. I welcome the crisis and the chaos for two reasons. One, and most importantly, it will serve greatly to focus US citizens on that rapidly fading document, The Constitution. Most of them haven’t a clue what it’s value is to them. A crisis would focus the collective mind greatly.

Second, it would almost assure a Republican landslide in 2010. Whatever the legal reality or who enforces what, the American electorate that is still American would be outraged. They would see Obama as illegitimate. People would storm to the polls in numbers so great that even ACORN couldn’t fix enough votes. Obama’s agenda would be instantly frozen. Even the Dems might start talking impeachment because the voter outrage would frighten them.

So yes, I would welcome that chaos. Because it would at least be a healthy form of chaos. Without getting rid of Obama, we’re heading toward chaos of a much different kind, the cosmic kind, with a capital C. Fans of Michael Moorcock’s “Elric” books will know the sort of Chaos I’m referring to.

Y’know, rudeness doesn’t really become anyone trying to make a serious argument.

And there is nothing for me to “get over.” All I’m asking for is solid, relevant evidence from whatever side. Since a long-form birth certificate would be the most direct resolution to the question of evidence *whichever way the answer goes* (born in HI or not), that is why I think this document would be extremely useful to the debate.

The second one is an extract of the original record for Obama. You don’t get the second one without the first one existing.

Are you absolutely sure of this? Can you cite the statute of Hawaiian law applicable to 1961 births that a short form gets issued ONLY when a long form (stating additional details such as name of hospital and name of attending) already exists?

Because there’s
this statute saying that Hawaii does or did at one point issue birth certificates for children born out of state, if “the legal parents … had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.”

I realize this statute has a 1982 reference, but it does open the door to the question of what law was in effect in 1961(ish), and whether it was possible for Obama’s parents to have applied for a HI birth certificate even if Obama was born elsewhere.

Anyone with additional information on this (or who has more time than I have to cull through the HI legislature website), I would welcome the input.

(Please note that what I’m not doing is throwing a web link in UP’s face, snottily declaring unconditional victory, and marching off the field.)

You refer to signatures on the form. Obama’s form was signed by the state of Hawaii’s registrar Alvin, T, Onaka, and has the raised seal.

Onaka did not personally sign the certificate. That’s a signature stamp.

But that’s a quibble.

Onaka was not personally present at the birth. That’s the difference between Onaka’s “signature” (stamped) on a short form, and the actual handwritten signature of an attending physician on a long form.

And it is a monumental difference. Forget the zealous standards of court-admissible evidence for just a moment. If you were just a person with common sense, whose testimony would you find more credible in establishing the fact of a baby’s birth? The testimony of the rubber-stamp bureaucrat sitting in an office in the state capital, or the eyewitness testimony of the doctor who held the slippery, squawling little bugger in his/her hands when the baby came out of the chute?

What’s the deal with the rudeness and sniping, folks? The laws here are complex, the documentation incomplete. This is not something as plain and instantaneously settled as 2+2, so I don’t think it makes someone a villain, a nutter, or an imbecile who would like things to be investigated and discussed. Do I like the guy? Clearly, no. Am I secretly hoping he’s outed as a non-citizen? Actually, no. Because I think the resulting chaos would be utterly disastrous for the country. I really would like to be able to say that we’re at least on the level playing field of “we’re all Americans here” and that the Constitution is being followed, on that item, at the very least. All I know is, I’m just an ordinary citizen-voter, and it seems to me that a reasonable standard of evidence has not been met, on an issue of vital importance to the country. I’d love to see it resolved, preferably, without chaos. But chaos is still a better option than living a lie. There are cosmic laws about the consequences of deliberate and vigorous suppression of truth. I really, truly hope that’s not the situation we’re in.

MF @48, so you now first see the factcheck.org piece? Notice that the date on that piece is almost a year ago.

bw @53, what you call a discrepancy is no such thing. The link you post shows two legitimate Hawaiian birth certificates. One is the so-called long form. This is just the original form filled out by the doctor at the time of birth. The second one is an extract of the original record for Obama. You don’t get the second one without the first one existing. The fields on the extract form for Obama are completely legible and unambiguous: Location of birth: Honolulu, Island of Birth:Oahu, County of Birth:Honolulu. Where is the discrepancy?

You refer to signatures on the form. Obama’s form was signed by the state of Hawaii’s registrar Alvin, T, Onaka, and has the raised seal.

It’s legitimate. Get over it.