Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Supreme Court Chief Justice Orders Obama to Provide Valid Birth Certificate by Dec. 1 (Page 9)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  14  15  16   
Author Topic: Supreme Court Chief Justice Orders Obama to Provide Valid Birth Certificate by Dec. 1
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
It's like a guy telling me that no, he didn't molest that girl, it's crazy to suggest that he molested that girl, and there's no evidence of molestation, but by the way, why are you being so silly and caring about something as trivial as molestation, and please don't bother looking too closely into the issue or being too fastidious about obtaining the proof.

Actually, it's more like asking a guy "Are you still molesting the girl" and refusing to accept anything but a "yes" or "no" answer.
Posts: 9573 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> TomDavidson

> If you knew aliens existed and had a document certified by the state of Illinois that claimed your friend had been abducted by aliens, maybe your analogy would work.

My point is that I may not know if aliens exist or abduct people, but I do know that people lie.

I also know that government officials deceive through omission. Everything about the behavior of the Hawaiian officials says they are covering something up. Maybe they are covering up some incompetence dealing with lost records, or records that weren't kept adequately. Maybe they are covering up the fact that they disposed of what records there were, violating serious laws in the process. The fact that they refuse to respond about the long form birth certificate is lying by omission. So we (not you, that's the the royal we there), know there is lying going on, in one form or another.

What we don't know is if the officials in Hawaii have a long form birth certificate for Obama and refuse to release it, or if they don't have it, and I don't know why they wouldn't have it if they don't have it unless all that was done at the time was that Obama's mom just went down to the office and told them he was born and registered him.

That's the most logical explanation for why we still don't know the name of the hospital he was born at or the name of the attending physician.

And if that's all it is, that's all there is to it. Just tell the truth about it.

Of course, that doesn't tell us whether he was or wasn't born in Hawaii, but it tells us something more than we know now. At least we'd know not just that there is something that we don't know, but we'd also know that nobody else knows it either. Right now we really don't know squat.

This is like a mystery where the case-cracking clue has yet to be discovered. Until it's found there isn't really enough evidence to make a conclusive determination either way. Some people are happy enough to go on faith. For many of them, it's the closest thing to religion they have. But I require more. I want to know everything it's possible to know before I make up my mind. And we don't know that yet. Not even close.

It's been mentioned that they are under no obligation to release the long form. Obviously. But nobody is under any obligation to believe anything they say either if they insist on withholding crucial evidence.

Another avenue to look at is his mom's passport. Weren't they stamping them in those days? Do any records of her passport exist? I have no idea, but it's another avenue to explore, not that anyone is interested...

But if I knew those two facts, the name of the attending physician and the name of the hospital in Hawaii where Obama was born, I would be satisfied.

Believe it.

Or not.

[Smile]

Posts: 7418 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
The fact that they refuse to respond about the long form birth certificate is lying by omission

continues to be innacurate
Posts: 10245 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
From the link you provided:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.

---------------------------------------

That is a critical question that remains unanswered, and I've raised it many times here.

If this is some sort of fact checking organization, why haven't they updated this information? Why haven't they checked out the fact that some information is still missing? Why haven't they asked why that information hasn't been provided? Why did they accept the "no response" of the Hawaiian officials? Why did the Hawaiian officials give no response?

Some people can say "because that's none of your bee's wax", but you'd have to be on a grade school playground to think that's an effective method to shut someone up.

I don't understand what the critical information is here. Obama's birth weight or his parents' hometowns have nothing to do with where he was born. The question is "where was Obama born?", and this certificate answers that: he was born in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii.

As to why the fact-checking organization didn't get the longer certificate, this is clearly because Hawaiian law only releases those to people with a "tangible interest"; anecdotally, I've heard of people not being able to get their own long-form certificate, because they couldn't give a good reason why they needed it, and in fact those certificates are so rarely used that I don't think they even issue them anymore. Are you going to federally override Hawaii's right to determine how it handles birth certificates? In 40 years when another Hawaiian becomes president, are you going to have the same problem with their birth certificate?

But, of course, you still haven't given any reason to believe Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Again: proof or it didn't happen.

Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
What we don't know is if the officials in Hawaii have a long form birth certificate for Obama and refuse to release it, or if they don't have it, and I don't know why they wouldn't have it if they don't have it unless all that was done at the time was that Obama's mom just went down to the office and told them he was born and registered him.

Um, no, we actually do know that. [url= http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090728/NEWS01/907280345/Hawaii+officials+confirm+Obama%27s+original+birth+certificate+still+exists]The Hawaii Department of Health has his original birth certificate[/url], but according to their own laws they are not allowed to release it. Do you really want them to ignore their own laws for your idle curiosity?

(Also, Obama was born at Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, right? It's not on his birth certificate, but I thought this was well-known.)

Edit: bah, it won't let me take that space out no matter what I do. Just c&p.

[ August 04, 2009, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Lina Inverse ]

Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> DonaldD

> He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."

I'm very sorry but I'm afraid that confirms MY point.

They are deciding what is sufficient information and they are NOT giving us ALL the information there is so we can decide for ourselves what is sufficent.

I don't accept that anything less than full disclosure, total transparency, and forthrightness in providing ALL the documents available will be sufficient.

Not sufficient for me, and certainly not sufficient to (rest of?) the birthers.

Their arrogant posturing makes me completely dismissive of their integrity. They as much as admit they are lying by omission, slap our faces and tell us to like it.

And my point about this fact checking organization is made too, because they accept this brush off, eat it up in fact, and skip away contentedly, still not having found out ALL of the facts. They are happy with the facts these government officials say are sufficient. If I was a child, I'd spit on those "sufficient" crumbs from the mighty morsels of a veritable factual feast these Hawaiian officials are sating their pompous selves with behind doors closed to the citizens of this once great country. Where have the muckraking journalists gone, those who get you all the information there is to know?

Posts: 7418 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If you really don't trust the Hawaiian officials at all, then why would you trust them even if they did release the longer certificate? It's not like they couldn't just forge it.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't accept that anything less than full disclosure, total transparency, and forthrightness in providing ALL the documents available will be sufficient.
Wow. Your standard was a lot lower when it came to deciding whether people got to be held indefinitely and tortured. I don't think you even got to look at one document, there, much less all of them.
Posts: 20995 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
> Lina Inverse

> but according to their own laws they are not allowed to release it. Do you really want them to ignore their own laws for your idle curiosity?

Um... yes?

Just kidding. But seriously, I find it impossible to believe that they can't release the information to Obama and he can't release it to us.

Also, at least we now have the admission that we don't have all the information there is.

That's progress.

Posts: 7418 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cherry, you claimed that Hawaii didn't respond, and that this was germane to your argument. Now that it's been pointed out that you 'overlooked' where factcheck and hawaii did exactly what you claimed would have disproven (or at least made meaningless) your point, is it no longer important?
Posts: 10245 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Just kidding. But seriously, I find it impossible to believe that they can't releast the information to Obama and he can't release it to us.

It is their law. Do you have no respect for their laws? Do you believe they should not be allowed to self-govern? As far as I can tell, the only information that needs to be available to the general public (or, for that matter, the federal government) are his date of birth (to confirm that he's old enough), and his place of birth (to confirm that he's a natural-born citizen). If he were born overseas, we would need confirmation that one of his parents was a citizen. All the rest of it is, indeed, none of your business, and I'm honestly surprised that you're not backing the rights of the state in this situation.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think what cherry's saying -- and here I actually agree with him -- is that Obama could ask Hawaii nicely for a copy of his long form, and then choose to turn it over to us.

I fully understand Obama's decision not to do so, however; I don't think it would benefit him in any way, and would represent the victory of nattering idiots.

Posts: 20995 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Only if one refuses to look at the evidence that has been provided, or refuses to accept the validity of evidence as the basis of facts.
Your response demonstrates that you are not understanding the basis of my concerns. I never took issue with your assertion of facts.
Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
The officials of Hawaii have not provided all the information there is. And that's a fact.

Whatever their reasons are, people are still admitting to making up their minds without all the information. Hey, it's a free country. Go ahead. I'll wait and see though thanks.

Well, of course not. They haven't released his vaccination records or his elementary school report cards either. What you're missing is that the information you're asking for is completely irrelevant to whether or not he's eligible to be president. Does the constitution require our presidents to have a certain birth weight?

quote:
If he doesn't want it because he doesn't want to be in a position to provide it to us, that's fine, but don't blame people for being suspicious then because that's suspicious behavior.

I think that's about all...

Well, put your money where your mouth is. Scan in your birth certificate for all of us to see! If you don't, I'll mark you down as a suspicious person who was possibly born in Kenya [Smile]

And, yet again: proof that Obama was born outside the US, or it didn't happen.

[ August 04, 2009, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Lina Inverse ]

Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It appears to me, jason, that you are saying that, because Tom doesn't think the issue is important, there is a lack of credibility as to whether or not the facts are as Tom and others on his side say.

My response to this is that what Tom or I claim about the facts can be verified, thus removing the credibility problem.

Are you saying something different?

Posts: 1958 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I think what cherry's saying -- and here I actually agree with him -- is that Obama could ask Hawaii nicely for a copy of his long form, and then choose to turn it over to us.

I fully understand Obama's decision not to do so, however; I don't think it would benefit him in any way, and would represent the victory of nattering idiots.

I guess, but I'm not sure they would even release it to him. At any rate, there's no information on it that would change his eligibility to be president, and I agree with you that it wouldn't benefit him; the birthers would just move on to some other target. I still don't understand why they will say that Hawaiian officials are lying, but at the same time say that they would accept a long-form certificate. Of course they wouldn't; if they believe Hawaii would lie about Obama's citizenship, they'd also believe that Hawaii would release a false birth certificate.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The officials of Hawaii have not provided all the information there is. And that's a fact.

Whatever their reasons are, people are still admitting to making up their minds without all the information. Hey, it's a free country. Go ahead. I'll wait and see though thanks.

Is it their law that they can't release the long form birth certificate to President Obama?

If he doesn't want it because he doesn't want to be in a position to provide it to us, that's fine, but don't blame people for being suspicious then because that's suspicious behavior.

I think that's about all...

--------------------------------------------

Edited to add: that's right Tom.

While we're on the subject of his birth certificate, there is speculation that the long form provides for religion and that Obama might be listed as a Muslim which would be okay for Christians as it's okay to convert to Christianity but would make Obama an apostate for some fundamentalist Muslims. So he'd solve one issue but perhaps open up a whole 'nother can of worms.

Obviously, I have no idea.

But in my defense, that's not my fault. I don't have all the information so I admit I remain clueless on this issue.


-------------------------------------------

As for my birth certificate, you all have my first campaign promise that when I am nominated by a major party to run for President of the United States of America, the first act of my campaign will be to provide my full birth certificate for everyone to see.

----------------------------------------


Okay, now I think that's about all. Hopefully World of Warcraft is up...

Posts: 7418 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
think what cherry's saying -- and here I actually agree with him -- is that Obama could ask Hawaii nicely for a copy of his long form, and then choose to turn it over to us.

I fully understand Obama's decision not to do so, however; I don't think it would benefit him in any way, and would represent the victory of nattering idiots.

I'm with Tom here. This appeal to some trivial bureacratic regulation as the reason for not releasing the long-form birth certificate is rather silly. Obviously if Barack Obama wanted it, he could request it and they would not turn him down.

quote:
It is their law. Do you have no respect for their laws?
No. It's a trivial bureaucractic rule of no import whatsoever. By contrast, the constitutional right of Obama to be president is of national significance.

I realize there's an argument that it's unfair to demand that someone go to such lengths to prove their credentials, but in this case it is the President of the United States we're talking about, and production of a long-form birth certificate is hardly an unreasonable or onerous request. Obama should be eager to produce the document, if only to shut the crazies up.

There are only two scenarios: either the document confirms exactly what Obama has claimed all along, in which case Obama is an idiot not to produce it (because it will shut up all but the most paranoid crazies) or the document contains something Obama does not want people to see, in which case that's all the more reason to want it produced.

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
As for my birth certificate, you all have my first campaign promise that when I am nominated by a major party to run for President of the United States of America, the first act of my campaign will be to provide my full birth certificate for everyone to see.

Why wait until then? I mean, if you actually are an illegal alien, then isn't it in the general interest for everyone to know that so we can send you back home?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom's point is quite valid, of course: the State has already certified the data on the short form (which, regardless of the fact that it is a printed document, is simply a reproduction of data stored elsewhere); if one can believe that the state has already been compromised, one can believe that the next document provided will also be compromised.
Posts: 10245 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I'm with Tom here. This appeal to some trivial bureacratic regulation as the reason for not releasing the long-form birth certificate is rather silly. Obviously if Barack Obama wanted it, he could request it and they would not turn him down.

I'm sure the Hawaiian government would be happy to know that you don't take them seriously.

quote:
No. It's a trivial bureaucractic rule of no import whatsoever. By contrast, the constitutional right of Obama to be president is of national significance.
First, I take medical privacy laws very seriously; Hawaii goes a bit further with it than most states, but you wouldn't want people spreading around your medical records willy-nilly, would you?

Second, Hawaii has already released all information of national significance: his date of birth, and his place of birth. (And, I suppose, confirmation that it is indeed his birth certificate, though this doesn't seem to be in dispute.) Any further information is none of your business and has nothing to do with whether or not he's eligible to be president.

quote:
I realize there's an argument that it's unfair to demand that someone go to such lengths to prove their credentials, but in this case it is the President of the United States we're talking about, and production of a long-form birth certificate is hardly an unreasonable or onerous request. Obama should be eager to produce the document, if only to shut the crazies up.
It won't shut them up; if they believe the state of Hawaii would lie about someone's citizenship, they'll believe that the state would produce a false birth certificate, or they'll keep falsely claiming that people have to have two citizen parents to be natural-born, or whatever.

quote:
There are only two scenarios: either the document confirms exactly what Obama has claimed all along, in which case Obama is an idiot not to produce it (because it will shut up all but the most paranoid crazies) or the document contains something Obama does not want people to see, in which case that's all the more reason to want it produced.
Or Hawaii might refuse to release it to him, or the document might contain something embarrassing that doesn't affect his eligibility to be president (though I'm not sure what that would be--born intersexed? Actually (domestically) adopted?), or the birthers would just claim that it was a forgery. Actually, due to Hawaii's disclosure laws (there's a quote in that broken link I made), it might actually be illegal for him to make it public; I'm not sure.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, World of Warcraft is not up, and I don't want to get twittery here but as I was laying down to take a nap I had something of a profound thought, which is that as much as I go on here none of this really bothers me that much to be honest.

It's kind of a diversion, like a Sudoku puzzle. But this one is still just a bit annoying like a Sudoku puzzle that wasn't put together correctly so doesn't have one clear solution.

But my profound thought was I don't let that really get me down and I wouldn't want anyone here to think I took it so seriously that I couldn't laugh quite heartily about it all. There are plenty of things we don't know and we may never really know. The JFK assassination (I think LBJ did it but have no idea really), God, etc.

It's not so much that I'm content to know how ignorant I am and am probably doomed to remain, but perhaps resigned is the right word, and in a whimsical way too because life wouldn't be quite as interesting if we already knew everything.

So try to take my ramblings about Obama and his birth certificate in that light.

---------------------------------------

Although reading Jason's comments, I can appreciate the potential seriousness of issues too and further appreciate that others take them seriously, but I'm not just going to get obsessed by it is all. And I always wish all of you the very best.

Posts: 7418 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom's point is quite valid, of course: the State has already certified the data on the short form (which, regardless of the fact that it is a printed document, is simply a reproduction of data stored elsewhere); if one can believe that the state has already been compromised, one can believe that the next document provided will also be compromised.
True, but the more documentation you have saying the same thing, the less plausible the conspiracy theory. State certification is not the issue; the issue is the facts underlying the certification. The longform birth certificate speaks directly to those facts, and therefore it is absolutely relevant.

The only thing suspicious about this is the fact that Obama is apparently relying on some local regulation of no import to deny access to a document that should have been produced months ago as a matter of routine.

Sure, if this were Joe Bob citizen the short-form would be good enough. But this is the President of the United States, and there is at least enough doubt in my mind that I would like to see this document for myself.

I have personally encountered similar situations many times. You request a document and you get a summary or a short-form. And the short-form says one thing, but when you dig just a little deeper and get the long form, something interesting pops up that wasn't on the short-form. It happens all the time. The hospital emergency report says that the plaintiff got into a motor vehicle accident and was wearing a seatbelt. You notice that the ambulance call report wasn't in the file. You request the ambulance call report, knowing with 99% certainty that it says the exact same thing as the hospital report. But then you get it and find out that one detail is variant: it says that she wasn't wearing her seatbelt. It turns out that there was a typo on the hospital report, or a signal got crossed. The whole case changes with that little detail.

Production of the long-form birth certificate is an absolute no-brainer. There is no rational justification to keep it hidden. It's not Obama's medical record, it isn't some piece of highly personal or sensitive information. Less important politicians have been revealing much more important / sensitive / personal information for far less cause. The Clintons come to mind as people who practically disclosed their entire financial histories just to ensure that Hillary had no skeletons in her closet to jeopardize her chances at winning an election. But a document speaking to the President's ability to BE PRESIDENT in the first place that may tell us, what, his birth weight and sex is too sensitive and personal to disclose? You're joking, right?

[ August 04, 2009, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
First, I take medical privacy laws very seriously; Hawaii goes a bit further with it than most states, but you wouldn't want people spreading around your medical records willy-nilly, would you?
Sorry, I wasn't aware that a birth certificate contained personal medical information. I've read my birth certificate, and there was no medical information on it at all. Are you saying that Hawaii birth certificates contain sensitive medical information?
Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Sorry, I wasn't aware that a birth certificate contained personal medical information. I've read my birth certificate, and there was no medical information on it at all. Are you saying that Hawaii birth certificates contain sensitive medical information?

From the HIPAA website:

quote:
The Privacy Rule protects all "individually identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule calls this information "protected health information (PHI)."12

“Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic data, that relates to:

* the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or condition,
* the provision of health care to the individual, or
* the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the individual,

and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe it can be used to identify the individual.13 Individually identifiable health information includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security Number).

The Privacy Rule excludes from protected health information employment records that a covered entity maintains in its capacity as an employer and education and certain other records subject to, or defined in, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. §1232g.

I'm pretty sure birth certificates are among the exclusions, but for most medical procedures, you can keep private who treated you and what they treated you for.

Edit: Link is http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/summary/index.html ; click on "What Information Is Protected".

[ August 04, 2009, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Lina Inverse ]

Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Those posting today all seem to have kept their tempers. But some of the posts got off topic and personal in a way which sets a bad precedent for future threads which may arouse more ill feeling. For example,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*laugh* *chucks G2 under the chin*
Aw, you're cute. It's almost charming how you're able to completely ignore what I've actually written in favor of your own biases -- but, then, you're a Birther, so I imagine you've had practice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Weak.

This is just a convenient example because it happens to include two such posts, not because it is anything particularly egregious; but it is preferable to confine posts to the subject or subjects of the thread on which they appear, rather than discussing the characters or personalities of other Ornery members.
Posts: 1240 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm pretty sure birth certificates are among the exclusions, but for most medical procedures, you can keep private who treated you and what they treated you for.
Of course it's considered a private record. The question isn't whether it's private i.e. not open to the public under normal circumstances, but whether it should be revealed at Obama's request.

The Clintons disclosed reams of information far more personal and confidential than some silly "long-form" birth certificate that may at most tell us what his birth weight was. (if even that). And they did it for far less significant reasons.

Let me put it to you this way: if we were litigating this issue, it would take a court around these parts approximately 6 seconds to order you to produce that document, and a whole lot more. It wouldn't even be slightly controversial.

I realize this isn't the same as litigation, but the precedent is there with other politicians like the Clintons, and the issue is certainly of the utmost legal significance. So what the hell? Why doesn't he produce the damned thing and be done with it?

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and the issue is certainly of the utmost legal significance. So what the hell? Why doesn't he produce the damned thing and be done with it?
He's already produced everything Hawaii lets him access.

And, of course, the only people who believe there is an issue of utmost importance that is unresolved are wing nuts and conspiracy theorists. There is no one that could be convinced Obama fulfils the legal requirements to be President by the long form, but not the short form, a birth announcement, and a statement from the Hawaiian government.

Posts: 1958 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lina Inverse
Member
Member # 6361

 - posted      Profile for Lina Inverse   Email Lina Inverse       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
Of course it's considered a private record. The question isn't whether it's private i.e. not open to the public under normal circumstances, but whether it should be revealed at Obama's request.

So go complain to Hawaii if you think they're being too restrictive.

quote:
Let me put it to you this way: if we were litigating this issue, it would take a court around these parts approximately 6 seconds to order you to produce that document, and a whole lot more. It wouldn't even be slightly controversial.
Maybe if the case revolved around something involving the attending physician or his birth weight or whatever. But the multiple litigation challenges involving Obama's citizenship have never required it.

quote:
I realize this isn't the same as litigation, but the precedent is there with other politicians like the Clintons, and the issue is certainly of the utmost legal significance. So what the hell? Why doesn't he produce the damned thing and be done with it?
Are you referring to something specific with the Clintons? I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
He's already produced everything Hawaii lets him access.

And, of course, the only people who believe there is an issue of utmost importance that is unresolved are wing nuts and conspiracy theorists. There is no one that could be convinced Obama fulfils the legal requirements to be President by the long form, but not the short form, a birth announcement, and a statement from the Hawaiian government.

Again, you demonstrate that you're not understanding the issue.

The issue isn't what wingnuts think or don't think is true. There is no doubt that Obama's legal status as a natural-born citizen is of the utomost significance, because it determines his right to be president.

The long-form birth certificate is a basic document that should have been produced as a matter of course in a case like this one where the candidate was born to parents who were "international" (for lack of a better word), and where there is even the slightest controversy in terms of the place of birth.

I am not salivating at the prospect of looking at the long-form birth certificate because I think it will have some dark secret that will bring down the presidency. I am simply stating the fact that this should have been produced as a matter of routine, that it is far less onerous to produce it than any number of confidential documents that Obama undoubtedly already produced, and that his refusal to even request the thing is suspicious, to say the least. And correct me if I am wrong, but Obama hasn't even requested the document, has he? So at what point has the State of Hawaii refused to produce what was never requested?

quote:
So go complain to Hawaii if you think they're being too restrictive.
Don't be obtuse. The suggestion that the obstacle here is the State of Hawaii bureacracy is an insult to our instelligence. It's asinine to suggest that the President of the United States is unable to obtain a copy of his own birth certificate, especially in a case where he never even bothered to request it!

quote:
Maybe if the case revolved around something involving the attending physician or his birth weight or whatever. But the multiple litigation challenges involving Obama's citizenship have never required it.
I'm talking about if the case were about what Obama's citizenship / immigration status was. It would be an absolute no-brainer to produce the long-form birth certificate.

Obama has already conceded that this is at least an issue by going out of his way to produce the short-form. He cannot now turn around and claim that there is no issue. If he was going to take the position that the whole question was ludicrous and off limits, then he would not have produced anything. He would not be producing a short form document but then arbitrarily refusing to produce the long-form.

What befuddles me is why he bothered to produce the short-form but all of the sudden can't be bothered to produce the long form? And don't bring up that asinine (well it's the law of Hawaii) tripe. One word from Obama and the birth certificate would be his. So why isn't he producing such a trivial and easy to obtain document with no personal information of any significance.

quote:
Are you referring to something specific with the Clintons? I'm not really sure what you're talking about here.
Didn't Bill Clinton have to disclose mountains of personal financial information regarding his charity and other works when Hillary was competing in the primaries? Doesn't every politician who runs for a major office submit to detailed scrutiny of their past records, and disclose volumes of other personal information? As I recall McCain disclosed his personal tax information too; the controversy was simply over whether or not to disclose Cindy's. That's far more onerous than a simple birth certificate.

[ August 04, 2009, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The way I look at it, jason, you're lambasting Obama for producing his driver's license when asked what gives him the right to drive a car, and instead demanding that he ask the state to release the results of his driver's exam. After all, what happened on the exam that he might be hiding? What if his license was forged by the state of Illinois?
Posts: 20995 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's asinine to suggest that the President of the United States is unable to obtain a copy of his own birth certificate, especially in a case where he never even bothered to request it!
*sigh*

When you request your birth certificate from Hawaii, which is what Obama did in 2007, they give you the short form. In fact, there's not an option on what to request... if you request anything having to do with your birth, they give you the short form. This is all in the factcheck article that has been posted, in this very thread even, multiple times.

It would be great if you'd educate yourself before calling things asinine.

Posts: 1958 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The way I look at it, jason, you're lambasting Obama for producing his driver's license when asked what gives him the right to drive a car, and instead demanding that he ask the state to release the results of his driver's exam. After all, what happened on the exam that he might be hiding? What if his license was forged by the state of Illinois?
That's one way of looking at it. I look at it as asking for the videotape of a witness statement, versus a typed transcript. Why would you produce one but then go out of your way to avoid having to produce the other?

Moreover Tom, if my qualification for driving a car had ramifications of national significance capable of bringing down the government, you had better believe I'd request the test results. And I wouldn't blink an eye in the process.

The media routinely digs up the garbage of every two-bit politician on the national stage. You've got investigators poring through every document with a fine tooth and comb, but something as basic as a full copy of the birth certificate is an outrageous request in a debate about a politician's legal status at birth ?

[ August 04, 2009, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When you request your birth certificate from Hawaii, which is what Obama did in 2007, they give you the short form. In fact, there's not an option on what to request... if you request anything having to do with your birth, they give you the short form. This is all in the factcheck article that has been posted, in this very thread even, multiple times.

It would be great if you'd educate yourself before calling things asinine.

And it would be great if you paid attention to the forest around you instead of sticking your nose obstinately in the dirt.

As Tom mentioned, Obama could just write them a friendly letter and request the document. Just because they don't routinely give the long-form out, doesn't mean they can't or won't do so. Certainly if they get such a letter with Barack Obama's signature at the end, there's a better than even chance that someone will go over to the archive and fax a copy over to the white house.

I can't think of any compelling reason why a government office would deny a private citizen access to his own birth certificate. And of course, nothing has been denied because nothing has been requested, has it?

[ August 04, 2009, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
jasonr, come on.

"Why would you produce one but then go out of your way to avoid having to produce the other?"

This has been asked and answered. The one that was produced is the standard version, so the answer to "why" one would produce it instead of the other is too obvious to restate in any other terms - that's the standard form.

"Moreover Tom, if my qualification for driving a car had ramifications of national significance capable of bringing down the government, you had better believe I'd request the test results."

Here you're pretending that the long form is better/more proof than the one that was already produced. That's not the case.

"but something as basic as a full copy of the birth certificate is an outrageous request in a debate about a politician's legal status at birth ?"

It's just pointless, that's all. Producing an extra document solves nothing and just encourages further grasping at straws and wasting of time.

Posts: 6166 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, Jason, Obama could request the long form from Hawaii, taking time out of his day to do so.

However, he is under no legal obligation to do so. He is fully constitutionally qualified to be President of the United States. The documentation he has produced more then meets the requirements under all laws.

Doing so would not convince anyone that is not already convinced that he is qualified to be president, because this issue is not about his constitutional qualifications. It is about hatred.

Giving in to the demands of the wing nuts who think he has not met his burden of proof means that they will come up with MORE demands. Which means he will need to take more time out of his day to meet those demands, as precedent will have been established that he will meet ridiculous demands from ridiculous people that have nothing to do with how he is governing or his qualifications to do so. Eventually, Obama would get so bogged down with the wing nut conspiracy theories, and discounting him, that he would not be able to govern.

At that point, the wing nuts win. Because that is what this is about... denying Obama the presidency.

It is NOT about anything legitimate.

Not only does Obama have no legal obligation to produce anything more, he also has a moral obligation NOT to, not only for the sake of his presidency, but all following presidencies.

Posts: 1958 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I suppose some folks see it as payback for questioning Dubya's military record. Along with being much ado about nothing.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It seems to me that it's in Obama's interest to encourage the lunatic fringe of the right. I'm not entirely sure that refusing to produce the long form isn't a calculated strategy on his part to fracture and marginalize the Republican party.
Posts: 3442 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jasonr
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for jasonr   Email jasonr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Doing so would not convince anyone that is not already convinced that he is qualified to be president, because this issue is not about his constitutional qualifications. It is about hatred
I'll agree with the latter point for the most part. However, I evaluate the request on its merits, not on its motivation. And incidentally, you're wrong on the first part: it would, in fact, convince me so at least I'd be convinced of his qualification.

quote:
Giving in to the demands of the wing nuts who think he has not met his burden of proof means that they will come up with MORE demands. Which means he will need to take more time out of his day to meet those demands, as precedent will have been established that he will meet ridiculous demands from ridiculous people that have nothing to do with how he is governing or his qualifications to do so. Eventually, Obama would get so bogged down with the wing nut conspiracy theories, and discounting him, that he would not be able to govern.
That's a bit hyperbolic. A demand is either reasonable or it isn't. Asking for the long-form passport is not only reasonable, but something that should have been just routine. If they ask Obama to submit to cross-examination before a tribunal while standing on his head then he will simply say no.
Posts: 7164 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
PSRT
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for PSRT   Email PSRT   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
However, I evaluate the request on its merits,
Clearly not, because you think there's any legal requirement for the office of the presidency that Obama hasn't met and that he is not qualified.

quote:
Asking for the long-form passport is not only reasonable, but something that should have been just routine.
It is not, however, routine. The short form fulfills all of Obama's constitutional requirements. Why, then, should Obama be under ANY moral or legal obligation to produce anything else? Once someone has met all requirements for a job, asking for additional information leaves the grounds of reasonableness.

And not believing that he has met the requirements for the job puts one into the "wing nut conspiracy theorist" category.

[ August 04, 2009, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: PSRT ]

Posts: 1958 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 16 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  14  15  16   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1