patrick.net

Obama was not born in Kapiolani - his birth was registered as unattended home birth.

What is your evidence for this assertion?

As for numbers matching and stuff, this is Hawaii we're talking about.

Obama's number of 10641 is pretty close to the Nordyke numbers of 10637/38. The twins were born on a Saturday (the day after Obama).

You would need to show that numbers never got mixed up like this with the registrar in 1961, and even then this is really weak stuff.

I will leave it to you to figure out why is it that Obama chose to lie about Kapiolani.

This is an assertion not in evidence, yet.

shrekgrinch says

And several states are now requiring such proof up front starting in 2012, with varying details of requirements. So…therefore this entire thread and indeed this entire posting is a huge waste of time. Your hated ‘birthers’ have won, it would seem.

Besides who won what, (as if this is some team sport we're talking here), What in the hell would be so wrong with that?

Does this thing retro invalidate?

shrekgrinch says

If you are referring to the image of the short form Roberto has posted on here, it isn’t the real one by virtue of actual Hawaiian law. It is not the original one or even a copy of it. The Governor of Hawaii (both past one and present one) backs that up as do other Hawaiian officials who claim they have seen it. Therefore I nor anyone else has to ‘prove’ that it isn’t the real deal…it is already proven.

This is just a bald face assertion. Where is the proof that this isn't real. It is real by virtue of Hawaiian law. http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

Nothing in Hawaii says anything about Long forms. This is a fantasy, dude.

The ballot box strategy of the Birthers as argued by Shrekgrinch is this:

1. Pass laws in battleground states that require complex proofs of citizenship, i.e. mandating that vital records must be removed from the original vault and submitted to each state authority for personal inspection (despite this practice of vital record removal being illegal in the originating state),

2. Define the form these vital records must take (name a medium - paper, stone tablet, microfilm), regardless of the medium the candidate's state origin used. For example, a State that migrated all of their paper to microfiche format would find any candidate born within their borders ineligible to run for President within that state because they don't have the right record format. THIS IS THE LONG PAPER FORM DEBATE.

3. Alternatively, make the law so vague it gives state authorities carte blanche to decide whether a presented record provides enough "evidence" of birth. In Republican dominated states, the Republican authority will reject whatever is presented.

4. Obama doesn't get on the ballot in battleground states.

5. Sarah Palin wins the 2012 election.

This strategy is so base stupid, I can't help but support it completely. I get a happy gleam in my eye as I ponder state level Republicans fighting it out over eligibility laws.

Please God, I don't ask for much. But please get these crazy laws on the books in as many states as possible. The higher we elevate this issue, the better!

shrekgrinch says

The law AT THE TIME OBAMA WAS BORN is what applies not current law, for one thing.

Dubious. "natural-born citizen" means whatever the SCOTUS says it does. Congress really has no say in the matter.

An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

shrekgrinch says

Second, according to the law at the time McCain was born, it had (and still does have) an explicit provision for the children of active service members born overseas…

AFAIK there was no such law explicitly for active service members.

shrekgrinch says

Try getting a passport or a driver’s license by submitting a ‘announcement in a newspaper’ in lieu of a real birth certificate.

A Certification of Live Birth is in fact a "real birth certificate".

shrekgrinch says

he could have lost his citizenship under the law at that time, too.

You'll now have to show that Obama successfully renounced his citizenship as a minor. Note that consulates do not allow this for anyone who is incapable of understanding the consequences.

IIRC Barry came back to Hawaii at age 10 so this is just a blind alley I'm afraid.

shrekgrinch says

But none of this matters since we can’t prove he even has a birth certificate.

A Certification of Live Birth is in fact a "birth certificate".

shrekgrinch says

Nomograph says

He supplied his birth certificate. Nothing will satisfy you Birthers.

No he has not.

A Certification of Live Birth is in fact a "birth certificate".

shrekgrinch says

According to Hawaiian law (and the laws of just about every other state & territory) the attending physician’s name and signature should be listed on it as well as the name and address of the hospital, amongst other things.

That's a "Certificate of Live Birth". Yes, it would be nice if we could see that. But a Certification of Live Birth is just as good, per the "full faith and credit" clause.

shrekgrinch says

The short term ‘version’ shows no such thing and UNDER HAWAIIAN LAW the short term version is to be used to only prove that the State of Hawaii has the real birth certificate, and that is all.

Nope. The "Certification" is good for everything -- DLs, passports, etc.

shrekgrinch says

And several states are now requiring such proof up front starting in 2012, with varying details of requirements. So…therefore this entire thread and indeed this entire posting is a huge waste of time. Your hated ‘birthers’ have won, it would seem.

This is an interesting question. I'm no lawyer, but "Full faith and credit" clause of Article IV may make any "long form" requirements unconstitutional, since birth certificates are not constitutionally-created.

Obama's state-issued "Certification of Live Birth" should be sufficient to pass any other state's eligibility requirement.

But this will certainly be entertaining.

Imagine this scenario in 2012:

In no way, shape, or form will Obama ever give anyone anything else to "prove" his citizenship.

Republican officials in Arizona say Obama's Birth Certificate (as posted above in this thread) does not meet eligibility requirements under the new law - which requires a paper "long" form document that the officials can look at, feel, and sniff. They order that Obama can't be placed on the ballot next Spring because he ignores them.

The political circus that would erupt would be epic. A State controlled by the opposing party attempts to deny a sitting President a vote in the next election. Not since the Civil War has a state attempted to manipulate and corrupt the Constitution as blatantly.

This will never happen, of course. Courts have struck down these laws at the lowest levels many times already. But the political fallout would eclipse all other issues in the election and derail the Republican election strategy.

The next American Civil War is coming, and its going to be Tea Party nut vs. Republican establishment loyalist.

The real funny thing is that nobody cared about this shit when Goldwater was the candidate in 1964.

How far have we fallen since then. Must be all the MBTE in the water.

Troy says

Obama was not born in Kapiolani - his birth was registered as unattended home birth.
What is your evidence for this assertion?
As for numbers matching and stuff, this is Hawaii we’re talking about.
Obama’s number of 10641 is pretty close to the Nordyke numbers of 10637/38. The twins were born on a Saturday (the day after Obama).
You would need to show that numbers never got mixed up like this with the registrar in 1961, and even then this is really weak stuff.
I will leave it to you to figure out why is it that Obama chose to lie about Kapiolani.
This is an assertion not in evidence, yet.

Comparing registration numbers based on date of birth is incorrect. Numbers should be compared based on the date when registrations were processed and numbers assigned by the DoH office.

There is three days difference between the registration date shown on Obama's compared to Nordyke certificates.

Numbers were stamped on the form using a machine that incremented them automatically. It is impossible that Obama's registration was processed on August 8 and had the number 10641 stamped on it.

One of these two items shown on Obama's COLB is a forgery.

Abercrombie's comment about "written down" thing does not reflect the official birthplace story (birth in the Kapiolani). It supports the unattended birth registration scenario.

nosf41 says

Troy says

Obama was not born in Kapiolani - his birth was registered as unattended home birth.
What is your evidence for this assertion?
As for numbers matching and stuff, this is Hawaii we’re talking about.
Obama’s number of 10641 is pretty close to the Nordyke numbers of 10637/38. The twins were born on a Saturday (the day after Obama).
You would need to show that numbers never got mixed up like this with the registrar in 1961, and even then this is really weak stuff.
I will leave it to you to figure out why is it that Obama chose to lie about Kapiolani.
This is an assertion not in evidence, yet.

Comparing registration numbers based on date of birth is incorrect. Numbers should be compared based on the date when registrations were processed and numbers assigned by the DoH office.
There is three days difference between the registration date shown on Obama’s compared to Nordyke certificates.
Numbers were stamped on the form using a machine that incremented them automatically. It is impossible that Obama’s registration was processed on August 8 and had the number 10641 stamped on it.
One of these two items shown on Obama’s COLB is a forgery.
Abercrombie’s comment about “written down” thing does not reflect the official birthplace story (birth in the Kapiolani). It supports the unattended birth registration scenario.

nosf--

That's where my question comes in--clearly you think there is a conspiracy. Who all is involved?

nosf41 says

Numbers were stamped on the form using a machine that incremented them automatically. It is impossible that Obama’s registration was processed on August 8 and had the number 10641 stamped on it.

Well, only the dates are clearly stamped. I'd bet the numbers were pre-printed at the printer, like all forms were back in the day.

These births happened over a Friday night/Saturday afternoon period and the original certificates were accepted and date-stamped the next week, Tuesday for Mrs Obama and Friday for Mrs Nordyke.

The Nordyke mother with her reported twenty-hour labor, actually entered the hospital an hour before Obama's recorded birth time.

This is not something we can conclusively argue on the internet much from here, it will take an actual judicial process to get to the bottom of it. Eg:

One of these two items shown on Obama’s COLB is a forgery.

is still an unsupported statement since you have not described the process of how births were recorded in Hawaii at that time. It is entirely possible that different doctors did things differently.

For one thing, Nordyke's signature on the original form is dated the 7th and her attendant's is dated the 11th, the same day as their recorded filing. Nordyke received the form the DAY BEFORE Obama's form was filed, making the numbers all line up if Obama's mother simply received her form to fill out AFTER Nordyke, but was able to get the attendant's signature either that day or the next day (when the form was filed).

The problem with conspiracy theories is that the conspiracy theorists tend to ignore such simple, prosaic, solutions.

Abercrombie’s comment about “written down” thing does not reflect the official birthplace story (birth in the Kapiolani). It supports the unattended birth registration scenario.

That's also possible too, but you've got the State of Hawaii asserting that he was born in Honolulu. Your problem is with them now. Good luck.

heh I have a walkback:

shows that the serial numbers were probably not pre-printed but stamped.

Still entirely possible that the form was handed out stamped on the 7th to the Nordykes and the 7th or 8th to the Obamas.

Troy says

heh I have a walkback:

shows that the serial numbers were probably not pre-printed but stamped.
Still entirely possible that the form was handed out stamped on the 7th to the Nordykes and the 7th or 8th to the Obamas.

The DoH did not send out forms with numbers pre-stamped. This makes your scenario impossible.

Nordykes' certificates were not sent to the DoH until August 11. Check the signatures. Both attending physician and the local registrar signed it on that day. It means that these two documents did not leave Kapiolani prior to August 11.

The DoH processed them on the same date and assigned numbers 10637 and 10638. They stamped them once forms were processed.

Troy says

The basic line of attack the birthers are working on here is that Mrs Obama was NOT on the island in August, she was either in Canada or Kenya and his grandparents waltzed in and made an unattended birth certificate filing the week after he was born.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. So... unless Obama can supply (unspecified) proof to disprove a negative, he's a liar, and so is everyone else involved in the 'conspiracy'. This includes the grandparents waltzing in.

Troy says

his grandparents waltzed in and made an unattended birth certificate filing the week after he was born

I hate it when that happens. Those freaking grandparents were just so evil and crafty that week...

Troy says

Democratic state officials statements to the contrary, that’s not falsified yet since Obama has yet to release his damn “long form”, and the birthers do have grounds to be suspicious about this, given how utterly hinky Barry’s first ten-plus years of childhood were.

Hmm:
Democrats falsify things not falsified yet...
and a kid aged 0-10 with non-conventional background/experiences is one to definitely be suspicious of for the rest of his life...

Can't hide where your embarrassing arguments stems from in your mind, huh? Hate much?

Liz Pendens says

Can’t hide where your embarrassing arguments stems from in your mind, huh? Hate much?

Legally, I think the short-form is perfectly good enough and if the birthers want to make assertions that what it plainly says is fraudulent they need to bring it to a court of law.

So far, getting standing has been difficult, but one would hope that SOMEONE in this country has standing to have the judicial system verify that the Democratic party in Hawaii isn't screwing around on this.

That's what checks and balances is all about.

Obama could in fact just release the damn long form. It's what he should have done in the first place, but now he's got 25% of the country thinking he was born in Nairobi and the really nutjob right smelling fire on this.

Troy says

So far, getting standing has been difficult, but one would hope that SOMEONE in this country has standing to have the judicial system verify that the Democratic party in Hawaii isn’t screwing around on this.

It would have to be both parties actually. Gov. Linda Lingle is a Republican...

nosf41 says

The DoH did not send out forms with numbers pre-stamped.

This is an assertion not in evidence. . . .

This makes your scenario impossible.

. . . making this an unsupported statement.

It is entirely possible the registrar stamped the serial numbers on the forms as they came from the printer, or as they were handed out, and not as they were filed.

Nordykes’ certificates were not sent to the DoH until August 11. Check the signatures. Both attending physician and the local registrar signed it on that day.

Like I said, SHE signed her forms ON THE 7TH, the day before Obama's form was registered.

It means that these two documents did not leave Kapiolani prior to August 11.

See above. We know for a fact that Nordyke had her two forms in her hands on the 7th, BEFORE Obama's was filed on the 8th.

It is entirely possible that the sequence was:

1) Nordyke receives forms 10637 & 10638 from whoever is handing them out and fills them out on Monday. Her delivery was Saturday so this was the first day she could do this.

2) The Obamas get their 10641 after Nordyke did, either later on Monday or on Tuesday and get the attending signature in time for filing on Tuesday, beating the Nordykes by 3 days who had to wait until that Friday to get the attending signature for whatever reason.

This sequence matches the dates of the birth announcements in the papers, so there is no hinkiness wrt the Tuesday and Friday dates.

Troy says

nosf41 says

The DoH did not send out forms with numbers pre-stamped.

This is an assertion not in evidence. . . .
This makes your scenario impossible.
. . . making this an unsupported statement.
It is entirely possible the registrar stamped the serial numbers on the forms as they came from the printer, or as they were handed out, and not as they were filed.
Nordykes’ certificates were not sent to the DoH until August 11. Check the signatures. Both attending physician and the local registrar signed it on that day.
Like I said, SHE signed her forms ON THE 7TH, the day before Obama’s form was registered.
It means that these two documents did not leave Kapiolani prior to August 11.
See above. We know for a fact that Nordyke had her two forms in her hands on the 7th, BEFORE Obama’s was filed on the 8th.
It is entirely possible that the sequence was:
1) Nordyke receives forms 10637 & 10638 from whoever is handing them out and fills them out on Monday. Her delivery was Saturday so this was the first day she could do this.
2) The Obamas get their 10641 after Nordyke did, either later on Monday or on Tuesday and get the attending signature in time for filing on Tuesday, beating the Nordykes by 3 days who had to wait until that Friday to get the attending signature for whatever reason.
This sequence matches the dates of the birth announcements in the papers, so there is no hinkiness wrt the Tuesday and Friday dates.

Janice Okubo mentioned details about procedures used for handling birth registrations. She was answering the question about different phrases used on Hawaii birth certificates: Date Filed vs. Date Accepted by State registrar.

Because of the geography involved (travel between islands) two dates were used - one date when the registration was filed with the local registrar and the other date when the file was processed (accepted) by the State registrar.

She mentioned that numbers were assigned by the central DoH office.

Pre-stamping numbers makes no sense. The DoH would lose control over what numbers have been issued up to date and there would be gaps in numbers used because at least some forms would be lost by local registrars.

Much more robust process involves stamping numbers at the time when document is processed by the DoH - this allows them to have total control over birth registration index numbers and they would also know how many births have been registered in the state up to that point without having to count the registrations separately.

HE'S A TAX AND SPEND COMMUNIST ERR I MEAN SOCIALIST!

The sooner we get Hopebama out of office, the sooner we can stop this train-wreck of 3 YEARS of reduced Federal taxes. And we need to start some more foreign wars, we only have 2 running right now, that's not enough.

So ANY THIN REED we can grasp at, let's take it!

The conspiracy theorists remind me of George Carlin's Heavy Mysteries:

"Once a week, Father Russell would come in for "Heavy Mystery" time. And you'd save all your weird questions for Father Russell. In fact, you'd make up strange questions. You'd take a whole week thinking up trick questions for Father Russell. "Hey, hey, hey Father! Hey, uh, if God is all-powerful, can he make a rock so big that he himself can't lift it? HA, HA, HEEEEEY! WE GOT HIM NOW! AH, HA, HA!"

"Or else you'd take a very simple sin and surround it with the most bizarre circumstances you could imagine...to try to, y'know, relieve the guilt in the sin. We'd usually end up with the, uh, statement, "Would that then be a sin then, Father?"

There was one sin- not receiving communion during Easter time. You had to perform your "Easter duty". You had to receive once between Ash Wednesday and Pentecost Sunday and if you didn't do it, it was a mortal sin. Provided, of course, you had said to yourself, "Hey, I'm not gonna do it this year!" ...

"Suppose that you didn't make your Easter duty...and it's Pentecost Sunday...the last day...and you're on a ship at sea...and the chaplain goes into a coma...but you wanted to receive. And then it's Monday, too late...but then you cross the International Date Line..."

nosf41 says

Much more robust process involves stamping numbers at the time when document is processed by the DoH - this allows them to have total control over birth registration index numbers and they would also know how many births have been registered in the state up to that point without having to count the registrations separately.

Doing more research I see this is probably the case.

We still have the following issues:

1) Obama's original birth certificate made it into the central office on the 8th -- we have the filing date on the short form and the fact that his birth announcement made it into the weekend's papers, while the Nordykes' didn't.

2) We don't know how the filing date and the actual assignment of a filing number were correlated in time.

So, the prosaic hypothesis might be that the central office collected all received records and assigned them filing numbers at the close of business every Friday.

That Obama's filing number is so close to Nordyke's might be statistically improbable, given the 300 or so unfiled records for that week, but we can note that Nordyke and Obama are very close alphabetically, so if the filing was done alphabetically, viola, we're done here.

robertoaribas says

I was the second gunner on the grassy knoll… and I got away with it!

I was supposed you clean you up Mister Loose End, but the dadgum thing misfired. Tempe eh? Stay put.

robertoaribas says

my birth was actually announced in local papers in all 195 countries in the world. Just in case I decide to become president/dictator/prime minister czar of any of them, I am so prepared!!!

Good enough for me, you've got my vote. Deosn't matter what you're running for, just knowing that your parents prepared you for greatness is all I need to know.

robertoaribas says

I was the second gunner on the grassy knoll… and I got away with it!

I've always been a "Humpty Dumpty was pushed" kind of gal. Did you shoot him too, and then scramble out of there?

Nomograph says

shrekgrinch says

shrekgrinch

Birther.

Big man make speech like God. Big man like fuck horse but people not discovery.

Nomograph has a bug. Actually I do too, but mine is the flu. I think his might be a software thing.

Troy says

nosf41 says

Much more robust process involves stamping numbers at the time when document is processed by the DoH - this allows them to have total control over birth registration index numbers and they would also know how many births have been registered in the state up to that point without having to count the registrations separately.

Doing more research I see this is probably the case.
We still have the following issues:
1) Obama’s original birth certificate made it into the central office on the 8th — we have the filing date on the short form and the fact that his birth announcement made it into the weekend’s papers, while the Nordykes’ didn’t.
2) We don’t know how the filing date and the actual assignment of a filing number were correlated in time.
So, the prosaic hypothesis might be that the central office collected all received records and assigned them filing numbers at the close of business every Friday.
That Obama’s filing number is so close to Nordyke’s might be statistically improbable, given the 300 or so unfiled records for that week, but we can note that Nordyke and Obama are very close alphabetically, so if the filing was done alphabetically, viola, we’re done here.

You are saying that they would process files on the same date yet Date Filed field would be different? It does not make much sense.

What would be a benefit of arranging record numbers by sorting registrations on weekly basis? It would be a needles hassle. It is much easier to simply process files as they arrive at the office.

Abercrombie's recent statement indicates that there is no long form birth certificate for Obama.

What does Obama think about people who hide things from public:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvjS0VA4bE

nosf41 says

What does Obama think about people who hide things from public:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvjS0VA4bE

That's so fricking retarded. You somehow know something is being hidden ? Maybe that database version is all that exists now.

I am looking forward to the moronocracy blowing this up in the next election cycle, but I am WAY over this thread. Did it ever occur to you that it's nothing more than a political strategy to make you and countless others make fools of yourself ?

I didn't like Bush, and he didn't even get the most votes when he won in 2000. Both of his elections were highly questionable and I think he is one of the all time worst Presidents. But I didn't dream up bizarre fantasy strategies for challenging whether he was truly entitled to be the President.

nosf41 says

ou are saying that they would process files on the same date yet Date Filed field would be different? It does not make much sense.

There is no "Date Filed By Registrar" on the original form (as disclosed by the Nordyke copies), so it's unclear what exactly "Date Filed by Registrar" on the Certification of Birth refers to, or that there is any correspondence between this "Date Filed" and when the file number was assigned to certificate. That may have been monthly in 1961 for all we know ; )

If you would like to clarify this to pursue your fraud theories, why don't you go find some more Certifications of Live Birth to compare with the long forms, then we'd have a better idea of how the system worked in 1961.

1961 was 50 years ago now, so probably somebody is still alive from the state office to help us here.

Right know we don't know, and "unknown" is the null hypothesis here, not "fraud!", so there we are.

It would be a needles hassle. It is much easier to simply process files as they arrive at the office.

See, now we're just engaging in useless speculation, where all conspiracy theories inevitably go. If you want to actually build a case of fraud, you have to demonstrate the fraud that was committed.

So far, you have nothing. In fact, I don't even know what your assertions are any more.

Why don't you try to find who was really assigned #10641 if you think the Obama campaign stole that number from somebody born after the Nordykes.

Abercrombie’s recent statement indicates that there is no long form birth certificate for Obama

I wasn't aware he has made a recent statement on this.

Believe it or not, I am sympathetic to the birther argument.

I just put the shoe on the other foot here and imagine all the (D)s being (R)s in the story and what I would want to have done.

While I don't think Obama's long form vault copy is anybody's business but his own, like I said above I think it would be entirely proper to bring in the judiciary here to run through the facts and verify everything (related to the Constitutional requirement of being a natural-born citizen) is on the up & up.

Troy says

Abercrombie’s recent statement indicates that there is no long form birth certificate for Obama

I wasn’t aware he has made a recent statement on this.

There are lots of "articles" on the subject.

You see, here is where nosf41 is getting his "written down" statement:

Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He told Honolulu's Star-Advertiser: 'It actually exists in the archives, written down,' he said. But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama's birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate. And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.

This article is easy enough to find. Fox Nation, Rush Limbaugh, World News Daily, all the usual suspects. A single quote from Abercrombie, and then a whole lot of spin, some in the passive voice like "it became apparent" (to whom and why?), mysteriously with no quotes of any evidence of any kind offered to back up any of it. The original star-advertizer article from which the spin was made is easy to find too.

marcus says

Nomograph has a bug. Actually I do too, but mine is the flu. I think his might be a software thing.

Damn! I was getting kinda hot, too. I love it when he talks dirty.

robertoaribas says

I was the second gunner on the grassy knoll… and I got away with it!

Some 50-odd years later and you spill the beans now? While I'm impressed with your ability to keep a secret so long, I'm saddened that the only time we'll meet will be when I visit you in prison...

marcus says

nosf41 says

What does Obama think about people who hide things from public:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrvjS0VA4bE

That’s so fricking retarded. You somehow know something is being hidden ? Maybe that database version is all that exists now.
I am looking forward to the moronocracy blowing this up in the next election cycle, but I am WAY over this thread. Did it ever occur to you that it’s nothing more than a political strategy to make you and countless others make fools of yourself ?

Abercrombie thought that this was a problem for Obama reelection campaign. That is why he was on a mission to resolve the issue. He was looking for the Kapiolani birth certificate - yet issued a comment that a "written down" thing was found in the archive.

If you want to learn what is wrong with the COLB document posted on FactCheck, read my comments on this thread - no need to post it again.

MarkInSF says

Troy says

Abercrombie’s recent statement indicates that there is no long form birth certificate for Obama
I wasn’t aware he has made a recent statement on this.

There are lots of “articles” on the subject.
You see, here is where nosf41 is getting his “written down” statement:

Abercrombie said on Tuesday that an investigation had unearthed papers proving Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961. He told Honolulu’s Star-Advertiser: ‘It actually exists in the archives, written down,’ he said. But it became apparent that what had been discovered was an unspecified listing or notation of Obama’s birth that someone had made in the state archives and not a birth certificate. And in the same interview Abercrombie suggested that a long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate for Barack Obama may not exist within the vital records maintained by the Hawaii Department of Health. He said efforts were still being made to track down definitive vital records that would prove Obama was born in Hawaii.

This article is easy enough to find. Fox Nation, Rush Limbaugh, World News Daily, all the usual suspects. A single quote from Abercrombie, and then a whole lot of spin, some in the passive voice like “it became apparent” (to whom and why?), mysteriously with no quotes of any evidence of any kind offered to back up any of it. The original star-advertizer article from which the spin was made is easy to find too.

What did Mark Evans originally say about conversation with Abercrombie?

nosf41 says

If you want to learn what is wrong with the COLB document posted on FactCheck, read my comments on this thread - no need to post it again.

I searched for "factcheck" on this page, and it seems like you think filing number 61-10641 does not belong to Obama.

That seems like a pretty easy thing to convene a grand jury to investigate -- an outright fraud committed by the Obama campaign back on June 13, 2008.

Posting silly conspiracy theories on the internet, however, is just wasting peoples' time.

nosf41 says

What did Mark Evans originally say about conversation with Abercrombie?

What does that have to do with this? Mark Evans was not the one that did the star-advertiser interview.

MarkInSF says

nosf41 says

What did Mark Evans originally say about conversation with Abercrombie?

What does that have to do with this? Mark Evans was not the one that did the star-advertiser interview.

There is a link to Evans' interview embedded in my comment on this thread from "Monday, 7 Feb 2011 at 9:00 am". Listen to it - it confirms what you said was a speculation by the WND.

This is the quote from the original newspaper article:
"It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down," Abercrombie said.

Pay attention to the first part of that statement: "It was ACTUALLY written,..."

To me it indicates that Abercrombie is not talking about a formal document (long form birth certificate) but something else, perhaps a statement from a relative. It contradicts the official story of birth in the Kapiolani hospital.

nosf41 says

MarkInSF says

nosf41 says

What did Mark Evans originally say about conversation with Abercrombie?

What does that have to do with this? Mark Evans was not the one that did the star-advertiser interview.
There is a link to Evans’ interview embedded in my comment on this thread from “Monday, 7 Feb 2011 at 9:00 am”. Listen to it - it confirms what you said was a speculation by the WND.

Errr.... so again, why are you bringing it up when it has nothing to do with the star-advertiser article?

nosf41 says

Pay attention to the first part of that statement: “It was ACTUALLY written,…”

To me it indicates that Abercrombie is not talking about a formal document (long form birth certificate) but something else, perhaps a statement from a relative. It contradicts the official story of birth in the Kapiolani hospital.

To you it indicates? Sorry, that is not very solid evidence. You're just spinning his words.

Troy says

I just put the shoe on the other foot here and imagine all the (D)s being (R)s in the story and what I would want to have done.

I say with the shoe on the other foot, it wouldn't be an issue. Democrats don't have a huge subgroup similar to the republican one that is running with this. Too much class for such silliness. (even if exploring that technicality is a legitimate question).

Troy says

I just put the shoe on the other foot here and imagine all the (D)s being (R)s in the story and what I would want to have done.

I say with the shoe on the other foot, it wouldn't be an issue. Democrats don't have a huge subgroup similar to the republicans that is running with this. Too much class for such silliness. (even if exploring that technicality is a legitimate question).

Troy says

That seems like a pretty easy thing to convene a grand jury to investigate — an outright fraud committed by the Obama campaign back on June 13, 2008.
Posting silly conspiracy theories on the internet, however, is just wasting peoples’ time.

This is where I don't get it. It can't be the Obama campaign because the State of Hawaii backs the certificate as well. So, now we're talking about a huge conspiracy. Democrats, Republicans, clerical workers with no particular party affiliation, etc.. I just don't think it's possible that this could be kept quiet.

nosf41 says

This is the quote from the original newspaper article:
“It was actually written, I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down,” Abercrombie said.
Pay attention to the first part of that statement: “It was ACTUALLY written,…”
To me it indicates that Abercrombie is not talking about a formal document (long form birth certificate) but something else, perhaps a statement from a relative. It contradicts the official story of birth in the Kapiolani hospital.

I do believe that you're right - there is a hidden message that we've all missed. Let's take a moment to delve into this:

"IT WAS..." implies that something occurred, but the statement is wayyyyyyy too vague. What occurred? Why wouldn't he have said what IT was? When did it occur? "ACTUALLY?" Really? Why would he say that, unless someone was questioning him unmercifully even though this tired old subject had been asked & answered a zillion times - and we all know that's not happening. "WRITTEN?" Who wrote it? What date & time did they write it and what were they wearing at the time? Boxers or briefs?

"I AM TOLD." Not I was told, but I am told. He's hearing voices, I know it. "THIS IS WHAT OUR INVESTIGATION IS SHOWING." There's an ongoing investigation? Omigawd! I knew it! Proof that Obama is under top-secret investigation! "IT ACTUALLY EXISTS IN THE ARCHIVES, WRITTEN DOWN..." He already said that. Why would he repeat himself unless he was trying to convince himself?

He could have just as easily said, "The recording of the birth of President Obama DID occurr at the time of his birth and was dutifully noted in the records of the State of Hawaii. The legally accepted record of his birth is being held in the archives of the State of Hawaii in box number xxxx of xxxxxxxxxxx, currently being used as a door prop. This is information that was related to me by xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, who has intimate knowledge of the records of which we speak."

He chose the short form (22 words) rather than to share the long explanation (80 words). What's he hiding from us?