Pretty much a non-answer, BDBF.  The Governor of Hawaii has ordered his birth certificate sealed, meaning that it will take more than a simple FOIA request to get it disclosed - it will take a legal challenge.  I know the Governor is a Republican, but the question remains, 'Why?'  What purpose does that serve?

I emphasized LIFE as in the right to survive. 

The rest of the world is ahead of us on this issue and we're the richest nation on Earth.  And yet we still let our people fall through the HMO cracks and die every day because of bureaucratic loopholes and their gaming the health care system. 

It's unconscionable and everyone in American knows it...even the scumbag HMO company workers.

My apologies, I was being too colloquial.  Corrected.

Make that Dudette.

I JUST POSTED THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE LINK ABOVE....TWICE. 

Here it is again.   OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

Since the information contained within can be used for identity theft purposes, it SHOULD be private and sealed just like any of our are and should be.  So the Governor is right.  It's the LAW that you can't get to see it just because you "want to".

But the cat's out of the bag, so....

I did!  See, I knew we could all find common ground. 

I was simply referring to his application for running for office and all such documents as he's required by law to file with the government which are available through the FOIA.  I've been trying to get the idea across to you.  Just as MCCain, Obama only has to comply with the law and not every whim and demand some member of the public may have.

Besides what prevents you or anyone else for that matter from requesting from the county clerk's office of my birth county a copy of my Birth Certificate?  The law does.  You have to attest in the application that you are either me or an immediate family member with a valid legal reason for the request. 

Ah but you'll now argue but Obama's running for President and blah blah.  Which is exactly why I said what I said.  You'll just have to be satisfied with complying with the law yourselves and accepting what the law allows you to obtain in a FOIA.

I agree with you completely. The document on the snopes site appears to be a Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, but not a Hawaiian Birth Certificate which is a very different document. The Birth Cert. used in Hawaii [which the hospitals in Hawaii (both, since his sister says he was born in a hospital other than the one O says is his birth origin) refused to disclose to prove Obama's claim] has a seal, which the COLB does not require and the sample provided on snopes.com does not appear to have either. The Birth Cert in Hawaii also provides all pertinent info on the parents (age, race, nationality, etc) as well as the child. The COLB does not and the sample provided on snopes.com does not have such information either. Birth Certs are provided by the hospital from their own files and contains the signatures of the doctors and witnesses. The Cert of Live Bith is produced from a computer record, which is why they make the distinction between the two.

So though the COLB looks like something on snopes, I know that in my state of Washington, it could not be used to get a driver's license, let alone qualify me to run for the office of President of The US. I know that 15 years ago, when I tried to use a copy of my birth cert without the raised seal, it was rejected as invalid by the Dept. of Licensing in WA. It might be that way in Hawaii too, though I don't know. I only know from my experience in New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Washington.

BTW, when you look at the hex code for the image provided on snopes, you might find that it shows a notification that it was altered using Adobe Photoshop. At least that's what I read and saw for myself. But then maybe that evidence was Photoshop handiwork as well. Hard to tell anymore, that stuff is so good.

If I'm wrong on this, of course I'd like to know and be corrected. ;

Either way, you must admit, this is a fantastic plot for a movie, no?

As for being thrown out of court, as I said, we're all still waiting since August and four calls from O's attorneys to dismiss, yet no judgement and no Birth Certificate, just the Cert of Live Birth. Maybe we should tell the judge about the snopes thing. Help him out a bit.

Though I'm sure you'd agree that $600million is a bit more than chump change, and screening millions of small donations of under $200, made by credit card, from overseas would likely not be readily accomplished in the short period of time between its being recieved and being spent, it's hard to say with certainty. Several rich and powerful foreigners have endorsed and praised Obama and have stated that they want him to be in the White House. And $600 million just might be worth the embarrasment. I'm just saying... if you trust a politician completely, you'll likely be had; the bigger the stakes, the more flexible the ethics. Usually, anyway. Surely I don't invent the phrase when I say that eveyone has his price. Maybe Obama's really as holy as they say and is above all that.

maybe one day, we'll know. if we care to.

Not to forget...  bigotry is passing judgemet on peole you don't really know. "White haired old coots" might sound a bit biggoted to someone who didn't know you so well.

Some of my highest paying jobs were given to me by employers who were white haired and old. not sure what a coot is, though ... other than a term of biggotry. but either way, none of my most stable and high paying employers were very young or very liberal. I think that old and white haired has a lot to do with experienced and able to see a mistake before it's made. Which is probably why they succeeded in business and were still around to create so many jobs for so many younger un-cootish types. Whoever they are. And however liberal they may be.

And though "fear of the unknown" might be what is seen in others by one who lacks the experience to simply recognize a mistake before it happens... again... might, to others, be considered wisdom. "Folly of youth" and "leap before you look" are "old" phrases that come to mind. Though they meant far less to me in my youth and ignorance than they did as I grew a bit older and experience had taught me a few lessons. Not the least of which was to learn to earn enough to be a bit concerned when I hear that my income level, the result of years of experience and learning is now the target of heightened taxation; that my six figure earning will benefit the children of others before it benefits my own. Yes, this doesn't sound like capitalism at all. And it was the promise of the reward of capitalism that had enticed so many "old coots" to create companies that employ millions of those who would benefit from the dividing of the owner's earnings, the earnings from which was the very reason he provided those jobs in the first place.

but i ramble. Sorry.

BDBF & Ex -

You're both sort of missing my point.  I'm not one of those who doubt he is a citizen.

We're not required to disclose our tax returns either, but it is customary & expected of candidates.  I was actually asking the question from the point of view of Obama - I don't see how he'd have anything to lose by releasing it himself.  Would be the perfect throat stuffer.  I can't imagine identity theft being a legitimate concern.  For you & me, sure, but that's a bit of a dubious worry with B. H. Obama II.

And thanks for the BC link, Ex - sorry I missed the 1st 2, this thread gets bunches of replies while you're typing one.  Case closed.

Right, except these provisions of the Constitution don't apply to prisoners of war.  The government has tried to have it both ways here, they want to claim those they have taken into miltary custody are either legal or illegal combatants and are not civilian arrests (the constitution has been held to apply here).  Since many of them were civilians, the government had a problem they weren't captured during combat field operations (legal combatants) but rather through home searchs and snatch and grabs.  Hence they decided these people must be illegal combatants even though many were snatched from their homes while they slept. 

To prove these people were combatants at all whether legal or illegal requires evidence.  Which is why the government has fought to keep this matter out of civilian courts where rules of evidence are well established and keep things within the military system were all that is needed to establish the evidence is a military field report.

In any case what law the government has complied with in most matters of prisoners of war has been the Geneva Conventions which are legally binding on our governement.  And the Geneva Conventions do legally prohibit our government from indulging itself in the torture of prisoners of war.  Except old GWB is all about de-regulation which means to him he can comply with laws as sees fit and if they want do a little water boarding by golly they'll just go ahead and do that.  To hell with Geneva Conventions seemed to be the attitude of GWB's administration.

I don't think so (missing your point), I don't quite agree with you.  I already addressed this "point" of yours in my earlier reply #488 and others.  It would be a waste of Obama's time and his staff's time to try and tamp down every issue, inuendo, exception, allegation and charge that various members of the public can manufacture. 

Why do you think MCCain kept bringing up Ayers?  He was obviously hoping people would perceive it as an issue.  It doesn't matter whether or not it is a real issue, just will it influence the voters or not.  The same is true of this supposed BC issue.  Completely made up, manufactured tripe to try and influence voters.

Furthermore, releasing his birth certificate serves no valid purpose.  He only has to comply with the election laws.  If his complaince with the election laws don't satisfy people then nothing will.