Find a victim volunteer for us, Ms. Bug. This is the easy part, babydoll.

You must know someone who is willing to go along with a good cause. Make it a fun thing. Tell your friend he or she'll be anonymously famous around the world. Expenses for the experiment can be reimbursed from the gifts to Fogbow, if necessary, if it's just postage and application fees. Your friend comes out with a new birth certificate, maybe even a long form one!

The important thing is to document every little step in the process, with a good digital camera that takes video. Then redact the photos and edit the video later.

This was El Sordo - and anti-birther - at FR.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/ ... =1616#1616

So yes, it is possible to get a copy of the top part of your original BC, but as Raicha says, so what? The birthers will just say it is a forgery so why bother? Why bother HI DOH?

With all due respect to Foggy, realist and nbc, continuing to call the State of Hawaii or to send undercover agents to consume State time to "settle a bet" wastes the resources of the taxpayers of that State.

Isn't that one of the reasons we frown upon the antics of Orly, Berg and others? That they tie up state and court resources with nonsense? So why is it okay for us to do it?

Cuz we iz the good guys.




ETA: Do you think that could be Col. Sullivan?

The line of Danae's that I've bolded illustrates why, to me, this is all just one bit tangentially irrelevant debate, despite the Birthers' desire to see it as a victory.

I've never had any doubt that "HDOH could EASILY produce a Long Form Certificate for Obama upon his request." He's the friggin' President. If the President of the United States calls up the head of his birth state's vital records office and says "I want a copy of my original own birth certificate," I'm pretty darn sure they can make that happen, whatever their usual procedures are for such requests by people who *aren't* Presidents of the United States. Certified and signed, even.

Obama could probably procure a copy of his long-form certificate as easily as he could procure any of a slew of documents Birthers have demanded, like his college records, or his parents' marriage records, or his vaccination records. (He could probably get it *easier* than his kindergarten records or various Indonesian records.) The reason he hasn't produced such documentation has never been because he CAN'T; it's because he and his advisors have taken the position that they're simply not going to indulge informal requests by fringe conspiracy theorists. It's the same reason why NASA doesn't tend to go out of its way to respond to moon hoaxers. One could argue that for Obama this isn't necessarily the best path to take, but it's the one they've chosen and they're sticking to it.

If Danae's proven anything, it's just that Obama's stubborn in his resolve not to validate Birther demands by proactively responding to them. And we were already well-aware of that stubbornness, so even that's nothing new.

We don't know that for certain. Saying it's possible is based solely on believing Denae and now El Sordo.They wouldn't take the word of the President of the United States, so I'm certainly not taking theirs, especially when Denae has been demonstrated to be less than candid in the past. Denae has an envelope with a date, a receipt with a date and [highlight]an undated, uncertified plain paper copy of a document she already had[/highlight]. There is no proof the undated plain paper copy arrived in the envelope other than what El Sordo says he saw on the back of the page. If that is true, why hasn't she posted a picture of that too? I call shenanigans over and over and over again. Tell me why in the name of FSM, someone like Denae, well-versed in the birther lore, would say sure, send an undated, uncertified document and think it was proof? What organization is there that would not accept the copy she already had that her mother gave her, but accept an uncertified plain paper copy? I simply do not believe that Mr Onaka or Dr Fukino authorized for someone to take an original birth record out of storage, slap it on an office copier and send it to someone after everything that department has been through in the last 2 years with people requesting documents they no longer issue. I don't believe Mr Onaka called Denae. I would believe a communication from Mr Onaka saying he authorized it. I'd believe a dated, certified copy of Denae's. So like I said yesterday, get someone who has no connection to birthism to duplicate what Denae says she did. If June Bug or No Pilikia maybe know someone who was born in 1960 or 1961 or therebouts who would like to have a little adventure and go to the Dept of Health and ask for the same thing. I think the PJ, TFB team could offer a token of appreciation for the effort regardless of the outcome - expenses, lunch, Fogbow swag.

Nice to hear my position be so 'accurately' represented Stern. What I am pointing out is that the fold lines up with other evidence which adds to the credibility of the document.

Perhaps we can focus more on the arguments? I found that far more useful.

Possibly Obama's stubborn resolve stems from the fact that he already proactively responded to questions by producing the COLB in the first place and is still having to deal with the fallout from doing so. Once burned, twice wary...

Exactly but my points are not about logic or lack thereof regarding Obama''s COLB but rather how the news that a person named Danae had obtained a long form from the DOH in Hawaii was dealt with.

Some went as far as to call her a liar or other names... Perhaps they may reconsider their position?

And what token of appreciation is appropriate for the taxpayers and employees of the State of Hawaii who spend their time and resources responding to these fishing expeditions?

They are so unhappy with this nonsense that they even considered a "vexatious requester" law.

Seriously, enough is enough.

Why would he?

This from Phil Berg. Similar to WND's list, as well as Alan Keyes, and every other birfer.



I wouldn't.

He released his birth certificate in response to the rumor that his middle name was Muhammed.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... amas-name/

I don't think that's true. Anything that a state agency is required to do is defined by a statute. I don't think there's anything in the Hawaiian statutes that requires them to provide whatever a person requests. If a person needs proof of birth, there's a standard form, that when certified, is proof of birth for any legal purpose. There is no need for Hawaii to unfile an original record and make a plain paper copy for someone, other than for genealogical purposes. I do agree with you Loren, that if the President of the United States made such a request, the State might do it for him. But I find the idea that they would make undated, uncertified, plain paper copies of birth records on request quite stunning. It undermines their own records policy. At the end of the day, the answer really is 'so what'. If Pres Obama did get an original, complete birth record, the birthers would still not accept it. Pres Obama and his staff learned their lesson after the COLB scan. They know nothing will satisfy the ones who doubt and there's no point in feeding them more things they might attack. Look how they set upon Ann Dunham's passport records looking for any tick mark to cluck their tongues at. I'm glad Denae has faced the same skepticism they dished on the President. What goes around comes around.

To resolve a pending issue of contention perhaps? Or we could just ignore Danae and her documents. But that is not what happened. Surely, asking the State of Hawaii clarification under what circumstances they are willing and able to deliver what documents hardly sounds like tying up the state and court resources with nonsense.

So I am not arguing to waste resources but just to have someone clarify the issues. It's a valid pursuit of facts. Or so I believe, especially given the circumstances.
Or we can just grant Danae her minor victory and move on.

Oh come on nbc, anyone can fold paper. The fold lines add nothing. The only that would make it credible is a date issued after 2001.

That gets my vote, since the ability to obtain an uncertified document takes the birther argument nowhere.

I am not convinced. Remember that these policies were invariably explained with reference to certified documents which are legally binding and thus are not granted nilly willy. HRS 338-18 clearly identifies who may obtain certified documents. Then there is verification of facts, which was added in 1982 to deal with situations where it would be inefficient to have to go through a certified document path when a fact, known to the applicant needed to be verified. The class of people who could request verification is larger than the class who may get certified documents.
Then under Section 2.5 of Chapter 117 of the HAR 11, non certified data can be provided to anyone, under restrictions outlined in section 2.2 of said document.

So what record policy was undermined here? Some details would be helpful.

Sure. But I think it's important to recognize that this is not an uncommon position for an elected official to take. In the same way the government doesn't negotiate with terrorists, politicians don't negotiate with 'paper terrorists.' You ignore conspiracy theorists, not engage them.

If it is true the State of Hawaii issues plain paper copies of original birth records on request, then it's not a fishing expedition. It's a person requesting what the State of Hawaii issues. The alternative is for Denae to call up her new BFF Onaka, tell him the organization wouldn't take an undated copy and request another one, this time dated and certified. This is one of the most curious things about this. If Onaka asked whether she wanted it dated and certified, why would she say no, not needed? I find that unbelievable. The bet was to get a "long form" issued after 2001. The date issued was important. Whoever paid the bet without proof of the date issued is a chump.

I actually think james' bigger mistake was failing to specify a "certified" copy in the terms of the bet.

Not only is it a fishing expedition but it's "catch and release".

If it is true the State of Hawaii issues plain paper copies of original birth records on request...

What difference does it make?

Who would accept it as proof of the contents on the paper? A birther? A court?

It's useless. Throw it back.

Sigh... yes we can always move our goalposts when logic and reason uncovers aspects which point to one or the other side of a premise. Sure, anyone can fold paper, anyone can take the older document and fake a newer looking one on plain paper, but that's not the issue here. The issue is how to determine whether or not Danae's document is a fake, or not, given the data we have available.
Initially, there was some reason to suspect that Danae may have used her older document to create the newer one. However, as several people observed, there were some telltale signs that suggested that this was not as self evident, as the document had several aspects not found on the original such as the two extra boxes and the fold. While not proving one way or the other, they help us formulate likely hypotheses to be evaluated using rules of logic and reason.

As such, the fold, like the newspaper advertisement of Obama's birth, may not be proof but it is supporting evidence. If the document had been without a fold, no matching envelope and receipt and no vague imprint of the receipt on the back of the document, then the pendulum would have shifted towards more skepticism.

We can only go where the known facts take us, realizing that we have inherent biases that may prevent us from seeing the full picture. Combine this with levels of unfamiliarity with procedures and one can reasonably come to the conclusion that one is not convinced by the evidence. However, given the data so far, there is in my opinion no reason to refer to Danae in unflattering terms regarding these documents.

The preponderance of evidence, knowledge and reason all point to the fact that it is more likely than not that the document is in fact real, although we need more to make this determination to allow us 'proof'. Which can be obtained in a simple straightforward manner by asking Onaka.

I can accept why others may be more skeptical, and I have no real issue with the level of skepticism. But if we allow for skepticism then we also have to allow that birthers may feel skeptical about some of the data provided so far.

It's somewhat of a double edged sword, unless there exists a more objective measure to determine the factual nature of documents. While the preponderance of evidence wrt Obama is extremely strong, there are still those who are willing to deny its relevance. We can only do so much before we have to make the decision just to ignore the more extreme positions of skepticism in favor of realism peppered with some dose of Occam's Razor.

Perhaps but it addresses some arguments I have seen from anti-birthers who claimed that Obama could not produce the information on his long form birth certificate as the State of Hawaii no longer produces such information. On closer scrutiny of the statements, it appears that it is all about certified information. That by itself is interesting information, to those interested in the discussion. Mostly from an academic perspective perhaps...

That's a slippery slope indeed. When politicians get to determine who gets to see what under what rules, the potential of abuse is quite real. Our system is based on public officials being held responsible by 'We the People' and the FOIA acts etc serve to shine some light on the government, which in many cases is much needed.

I'd rather see some waste of resources than the possibility that a legitimate request can be denied based on some administrative rule.

As several people have already said, the available data is not sufficient to draw the conclusion the document was certainly issued by the State of Hawaii in 2010. The document itself needs a date issued or certification to prove it's authenticity. That's the only data that will do. This is why I find this so unbelievable, nbc. Denae made a bet to be able get a "long form" birth certificate after 2001. The date issued was important. Yet, when asked if it needed to be dated, said "don't need it." It doesn't add up. My BS meter went to SuperMax1000+ when I learned Denae already had a copy of the document she requested. If no other data is available, either by Denae making another request for a certified or dated copy, or a PJer making a request, then the result must remain "inconclusive."

Potential for abuse? We're talking about individuals being informally asked for documentation about their personal lives. Not only is this certainly not at the level of a judicial request, here we're dealing with requests that aren't even from legitimate media sources or their ballot opposition. They're just 'demands' made by anonymous internet posters and online conspiracy theorists.

Even when it comes to legitimate requests fielded by legitimate requestors, whether or not to answer those requests still always falls with the candidate himself. This isn't like an FOIA request. Sometimes candidates release their tax returns; sometimes they don't. Sometimes they release their medial records; sometimes they don't. There's no mechanism to compel such disclosure; it's just up to the voter and the public in general whether such disclosure actually matters to them or not.