Now we can say we know the first thing about President Obama.
Three years after Democrats first demanded he show it and five days after Politico.com reported that Hawaii state law prohibited him from revealing the document, the president today released his original birth certificate.
Now would Ben Smith and Byron Tau of Politico explain how they got this most basic information totally wrong? Why had they joined the "faithers," who take on faith everything their government tells them, by declaring it was legally impossible ever to see Obama's birth certificate?
Smith and Tau wrote April 22:
Hawaii law prevents the long-form record from being photocopied or released to anyone -- including Obama. Obama himself would only be permitted to inspect it -- not copy it or post it online.
'Faither' mistake. This was the heart of matter and yet Politio's Smith and Tau did not quote the law for their readers or look for possible exceptions in it. Obviously something in the law allowed the president to release his original birth certificate and post it online.
Here it is today:
The document does not appear to have any surprises. It does confirm once and for all which hospital he was born in -- the Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu. And we can see the signature of the attendant to Obama's birth.
For some super-skeptics, this will lay to rest questions about where Obama was born. But more importantly, historians finally have the original document to study. It certainly has other things to say about this president's life.
Ending 'distraction.' The White House explained how it was permitted to release the original birth certificate.
The President believed the distraction over his birth certificate wasn’t good for the country. ... Therefore, the President directed his counsel to review the legal authority for seeking access to the long form certificate and to request on that basis that the Hawaii State Department of Health make an exception to release a copy of his long form birth certificate. They granted that exception in part because of the tremendous volume of requests they had been getting.
In other words, the president asked for the original document and the president got it -- legally. Otherwise, someone just broke the law. Thanks for nothing, Politico. Combined with the news media's mind-boggling lack of curiosity, your "faitherism" could have kept the "distraction" going until the end of time.
Frank Warner
* * *
Update: Already (April 27) there is a report that the word "None" (for Obama's mother's occupation) and the "Date accepted" 1961 (on the stamped marks at the bottom) were altered on the published birth certificate. OK, it's worth looking into, but I'm going to assume there's a reasonable explanation for the touch-ups, if there were touch-ups.
Update: I do not believe this is a forgery. But take a look at this video of an Adobe Illustrator expert taking apart the elements of the birth certificate. How does a 1961 birth certificate have computer layers for such elements as signatures and dates? Weird. Perhaps Alvin T. Onaka, the state registrar who signed the document affirming it is a true copy, can explain.
... and nobody or animal was hurt or injured in the process of producing this meager document.
Posted by: Neo | April 27, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Critics: Obama’s Latest Long-Form Birth Certificate Is a Fake …
Posted by: CJW | April 28, 2011 at 06:17 AM
Hell even I can come up with a birth certificate showing my fake age and place of birth, I don't believe it. The government can and will do anything it wants. join a TEA PARTY in your area and fight back get rid if the (2)party system vote independent or commuinest party I don't care just get rid of the lawyers and lairs in office now we will be better off.
Posted by: brian hudson | May 02, 2011 at 02:21 PM
This is a 2011 electronic presentation of a microfilm of Obama's "long form" COLB.
They scanned the microfilm, which is a "negative" of the actual original (long ago discarded). They negated it again to make it positive, quantized the "grey level" scanned image to "black or white," then added the cross-hatched background electronically as a separate layer, to make it look like it had been printed on safety paper.
The reality here that many seem to forget is that the State of Hawaii can change the presentation of a COLB anytime they wish. Just because it doesn't look like a COLB issues 10 years ago doesn't make it a fake. They sign and attest on the bottom that this is an accurate copy of the original COLB, not the original COLB itself.
My suggestion, just look at the black portion of the pdf, it is a copy of a microfilm copy of the original COLB ... and it is as close to a "real" COLB as we will ever see .. for anybody in 2011.
Posted by: Neo | May 02, 2011 at 03:55 PM
So Neo, you're saying the original birth certificate is probably authentic, correct?
Posted by: Frank Warner | May 02, 2011 at 09:16 PM
No one can say with 100% surety that it's fake.
If you are to believe it's genuine, then yes Obama's dad was born in Kenya.
Posted by: CJW | May 02, 2011 at 11:53 PM
The goalposts are in constant motion in the minds of conspiracy theorists. Obama should have asked, "If I get it for you, will you then believe me?" The answer is always "yes!" until the document is produced. And then it's never good enough.
Serious people recognize that there is a Heisenberg's limit on the drill-down into evidence. You can have footnotes, but your footnotes can't all have footnotes. You therefore establish a single unified coherent hypothesis that can withstand the preponderance of the evidence. People who question a given hypothesis need to advance their own self-consistent hypotheses with superior evidence. Conspiracy accusers should be required to specify the exact nature and extent of the hypothetical conspiracy. When the charges are refuted, they can't just extend the conspiracy to n+1, rescuing their delusions by means of infinite regress.
Posted by: jj mollo | May 03, 2011 at 01:29 AM
Here is a response to the Adobe Illustrator distraction.
There are a hundred conceivable reasons why Obama might conceivably hide or fabricate his birth certificate. So pick one and prove it.
It doesn't make sense anyway. If he had a reason to hide it, why did he fabricate it? He could have just continued to sit on it, ignoring all the anklebiters.
Posted by: jj mollo | May 03, 2011 at 01:48 AM
This is why Obama needed to release a copy of the original COLB, Hawaii issues birth certificates for children not born there. If you believe otherwise, please explain this Hawaiian law.
Posted by: Neo | May 03, 2011 at 11:36 AM
If Obama had been honest and transparent all along (he hasn't been), no one would have much wiggle room to criticize him. But, he made his bed and he gets to sleep in it.
Posted by: CJW | May 03, 2011 at 04:29 PM
I just wanted to see it. I want to see everything. I'm sure this document will have its practical historical uses, especially on nailing down which hospital Obama was born in, and the age of his father. It probably holds information we haven't even noticed yet.
We rely on curious journalists and historians to demand the best documentation of the course of world events. I'm appalled that so many of them suspended their intellectual curiosity simply because the president is a Democrat.
It was even more disgraceful that so many news outlets falsely told us we already had seen the original birth certificate when we hadn't, and that just last month, Politico actually told us that seeing the original was legally impossible.
I'm especially curious to see anything Obama wrote while he was in college and law school. It would be a fascinating insight into his thinking. No major media journalist has asked to see his writings, and considering the silence on a matter as easy as a birth certificate, I don't expect the press to start pressing now.
Past is prologue. It helps everyone to know what the past was.
Posted by: Frank Warner | May 03, 2011 at 11:45 PM