[JohnInIndy]

"""Rev. 11/01 Laser" "

Good catch. There is a long form somewhere. WTF all the BS and mystery? Newspaper announcements won't get you a cup of bad coffee, besides most folks don't really doubt he was born there, but why all the crapola? It smells and is easy to clear up.

Also note the date of June 6 2007 on it. It states that it is prima facie evidence. But the question still remains s to why he won't produce a certified copy of the actual document.

BTW I am not a "Birther" But am curious as to why so many of his documents are sealed.

[redrockcoulee]

I think if I was to get a copy of my birth certificate it would not be the original, I mean how likely is it that the government of Manitoba would have copies of it laying around in case I do not have it anymore. I do not think my wife has her original anymore and many people do lose those certificates.
If Obama was to order enough copies to present to 100 people every day at the White House copies of his birth certificate it would still not be enough as they were not originals.

To me he provided a copy, the governor of Hawaii has stated that it is genuine, the Republican party vetted it before the 2008 election, courts have ruled that his birth place has been verified and the Hawaii government has made copies available to anyone who is willing to pay the fee.

Why should he satisfy those who are doing whatever they can to discredit him? Would they find something new once they got whatever they asked for the first time?

[GeneV]

"""Rev. 11/01 Laser" "

Good catch. There is a long form somewhere. WTF all the BS and mystery? Newspaper announcements won't get you a cup of bad coffee, besides most folks don't really doubt he was born there, but why all the crapola? It smells and is easy to clear up.

No, there is not necessarily a long form somewhere. Many states have systems that do not maintain such documents. For example, original deeds are not maintained in all state systems once the change in title is enrolled. Every court that has looked at this has sent the birthers packing, some with a legal bill to pay. What the state produced is the official record. It gets you a passport, and it is proof of your birth.

The state of Hawaii is one of 9 states to adopt the Torrens system for land title. Under that system, your deed is not the legal evidence of title, the way it is in other states. The computerized record of the state is the indefeasible title. They are running the birth certificates the same way. If you found a "long form" birth certificate, it would not be as legally significant as the record that has been produced. The whole point of the electronic registration system was to abolish the need to keep the source document prepared by the hospital.

Here is a quote from a site that makes its money selling you a copy of your birth certificate:

–Long Form Birth Certificate: This type of birth certificate is an exact replica of your original birthing records and will have information such as; parental details, including race, address, and other vital statistics. It is also possible for this type of birth certificate to include the actual doctor’s surgeon who performed the delivery.

**Long Form Birth Certificates are virtually a thing of the past as most states now utilize an Electronic Birth Registration System. This eliminates the need for the hard copies of long form birthing certificates.

Truly, this whole argument by the birthers is grounded in ignorance and is designed as nothing more than a smear.

[GeneV]

Look in the bottom left corner of the certificate. "Rev. 11/01 Laser" Obviously not the original. That may explain the sparse information. My guess is that information that isn't relevant as a legal matter is not included on repro certificates. When I got one last year so I could get a passport, it looked nothing like the photo copy of my original and the name of the doctor and hospital were not on it, as they were on the original.

Yes, and the Reagan certificate was printed in 1991. That form can't be an exact copy of whatever a doctor submitted a century ago, either.

[GeneV]

Also note the date of June 6 2007 on it. It states that it is prima facie evidence. But the question still remains s to why he won't produce a certified copy of the actual document.

BTW I am not a "Birther" But am curious as to why so many of his documents are sealed.

If you are asking that question publicly, you are hard to distinguish from a birther.
Repeatedly asking that question is designed to smear.

[larryinlc]

You're right. We as Americans have a right to know everything about everybody. Privacy be damned. Let's all post our birth certificates. John, you start.

But am curious as to why so many of his documents are sealed.

[Phil1]

""No, there is not necessarily a long form somewhere. Many states have systems that do not maintain such documents. For example, original deeds are not maintained in all state systems once the change in title is enrolled.""

I wonder why the Demo Hawaiian Governor said he would find ithe long form no matter what?

The copy of the Obama thing does not even state what hospital he was birthed at much less anything else. Is there anything else? This should be easy to clear up.

Regarding privacy, I wonder why you need to show a DL frequently to use a credit card or cash a check? Just askin.

[larryinlc]

True, but we don't put them up on a billboard for the whole world to see.

[I]"Regarding privacy, I wonder why you need to show a DL frequently to use a credit card or cash a check? Just askin.

[GeneV]

""No, there is not necessarily a long form somewhere. Many states have systems that do not maintain such documents. For example, original deeds are not maintained in all state systems once the change in title is enrolled.""

I wonder why the Demo Hawaiian Governor said he would find ithe long form no matter what?

The copy of the Obama thing does not even state what hospital he was birthed at much less anything else. Is there anything else? This should be easy to clear up.

Regarding privacy, I wonder why you need to show a DL frequently to use a credit card or cash a check? Just askin.

You show the short form birth certificate to get a drivers license.

I suspect the governor of Hawaii would like to see people shut up about this. Even though his state does not require a "long form" to be kept, he would like to find it.

What is a Demo? Is that like taking down a building? Or is it an age and income group?

[redrockcoulee]

You show the short form birth certificate to get a drivers license.

I suspect the governor of Hawaii would like to see people shut up about this. Even though his state does not require a "long form" to be kept, he would like to find it.

What is a Demo? Is that like taking down a building? Or is it an age and income group?

A demo is what the technician in an art studio class gives showing students how to do an acid etch or perhaps develop sheet film.

How do Americans know that Obama or any of the Republicans for that matter filed and paid income tax, perhaps that info should also be publicly made available. But I guess your Constitution requires the President to show proof of birth to each and every citizen.

[normhead]

OK, explain to me again why this is an issue.

There is only one possible explanation.

There is an implication that if Obama was born some where else, he wouldn't be fit to be president. I personally don't care. My great-grand mother, the Cherokee, had no birth certificate, isn't in any records and in the sense of being documented doesn't exist and never did. So what? Her ancestors lived here for 14,000 years before most of yours got here... You don't see Native Americans going around asking everyone to prove their ancestors got here legally do you?

This whole issue is another example of the depths people will go to to undermine democracy, if it suits their political needs. The biggest threat to American democracy would be Americans, where sore losers fabricate lies about their political opponents with impunity, and then pass them off as free speech. Surely, if someone thinks Obama was born somewhere else, they should have the courage to step up and say so, then accept the consequences as in a libel suit, if they are wrong. Not dicker about in such underhanded back biting speculation with lines like "he should be able to produce a birth certificate."

Are you an expert on birth certificates? Then, why doesn't my great grandmother have one?

Wait, I'll tell you.
Because, she was 1. poor.. 2. Native... 3. A renegade in that she and her family hid on the land her family had occupied for thousands of years instead of allowing themselves to be deported to Oklahoma and 4. never really mattered to anyone white.

Your assumption that something is wrong if Obama can't produce a birth certificate is slanderous speculation. It is equally possible that this is just another one of the injustices America continually insults it's perceived "minorities" with. The fact that you won't even stand behind your slanderous innuendo, says all we need to know about this topic, and anyone pushing it as part of their agenda.

I don't care if he was born in China or Japan or Chile or Indonesia or Mars, as long as he's American in spirit, and serving the best interests of the country to the fullest of his abilities, you shouldn't either.

[redrockcoulee]

OK, explain to me again why this is an issue.

There is only one possible explanation.

There is an implication that if Obama was born some where else, he wouldn't be fit to be president. I personally don't care. My great-grand mother, the Cherokee, had no birth certificate, isn't in any records and in the sense of being documented doesn't exist and never did. So what? Her ancestors lived here for 14,000 years before most of yours got here... You don't see Native Americans going around asking everyone to prove their ancestors got here legally do you?

This whole issue is another example of the depths people will go to to undermine democracy, if it suits their political needs. The biggest threat to American democracy would be Americans, where sore losers fabricate lies about their political opponents with impunity, and then pass them off as free speech. Surely, if someone thinks Obama was born somewhere else, they should have the courage to step up and say so, then accept the consequences as in a libel suit, if they are wrong. Not dicker about in such underhanded back biting speculation with lines like "he should be able to produce a birth certificate."

Are you an expert on birth certificates? Then, why doesn't my great grandmother have one?

Wait, I'll tell you.
Because, she was 1. poor.. 2. Native... 3. A renegade in that she and her family hid on the land her family had occupied for thousands of years instead of allowing themselves to be deported to Oklahoma and 4. never really mattered to anyone white.

Your assumption that something is wrong if Obama can't produce a birth certificate is slanderous speculation. It is equally possible that this is just another one of the injustices America continually insults it's perceived "minorities" with. The fact that you won't even stand behind your slanderous innuendo, says all we need to know about this topic, and anyone pushing it as part of their agenda.

I don't care if he was born in China or Japan or Chile or Indonesia or Mars, as long as he's American in spirit, and serving the best interests of the country to the fullest of his abilities, you shouldn't either.

I can understand the problems that some people have providing original birth certificates, even those living in the country they were born in due to family breakdowns, lost in moves, fire or flood etc. However Obama needs to be able to explain to the American people what he was doing the decade BEFORE he was born running around with his Kenyan relatives he may never had met, in Indonesia fighting for independence from the United Kingdom. And if not an explanation to his fellow Americans then at least to the Brits as to why they were fighting in a colony that they did not even know they had. i

[GeneV]

I can understand the problems that some people have providing original birth certificates, even those living in the country they were born in due to family breakdowns, lost in moves, fire or flood etc. However Obama needs to be able to explain to the American people what he was doing the decade BEFORE he was born running around with his Kenyan relatives he may never had met, in Indonesia fighting for independence from the United Kingdom. And if not an explanation to his fellow Americans then at least to the Brits as to why they were fighting in a colony that they did not even know they had. i

He further needs to explain why his father was not a President or an Admiral. An admiral's son is allowed to be born outside of the U.S. with no questions asked.

John McCain declined to publish his birth certificate (he did show it to one reporter), and the records of the Panama Canal Zone do not reflect his birth. It's funny how the reaction of the Democrats in the Senate was to unanimously pass a resolution supporting his citizenship, rather than to toss around or wallow in what could have been a legitimate question about the constitutionality of his candidacy.McCain's Birth Abroad Stirs Legal Debate - washingtonpost.com

The issue around McCain's birth certificate was far more interesting. Either he was born in the Canal Zone, and we have a constitutional question about whether birth in a U.S. "possession" is birth in the U.S., or, as was alleged by a flaky McCain "birther," he was actually born in a hospital in Colon, Panama, completely outside U.S. territory.

[jolepp]

This whole birth issue seems like looking for an excuse not to accept the outcome of the democratic process rather than a legitimate concern. Another explanation would be a calculated attempt to avoid discussion of the actual problems at hand, which implies a concern about the likely solutions. Thinly veiled contempt of democracy either way, IMO.

[GeneV]

This whole birth issue seems like looking for an excuse not to accept the outcome of the democratic process rather than a legitimate concern. Another explanation would be a calculated attempt to avoid discussion of the actual problems at hand, which implies a concern about the likely solutions. Thinly veiled contempt of democracy either way, IMO.

True, but it is also markerting psychology IMHO, with some racism attached. The message is that President Obama is black and has a foreign-sounding name. He is not "one of us." He cannot be legitimate. The idea is to keep the least informed thinking that he is from another culture and another religion as well.

It might, in Trump's case, also distract from the fact that, as the son of a vastly wealthy NY Real Estate tycoon, the Donald, himself, is not like most Americans.