Wednesday, October 15, 2008

New video on challenge to Obama's eligibility to be president



Why is Berg trying to obtain the vaulted long-form birth certificate for Barack Obama?

The original images posted on the Internet released by the Obama campaign were highly suspicious, pulled, and discredited. Recently, FactCheck.org, which is funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a $160 million school reform effort funded by and approved by, among others, Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, from 1995 until the end of 2001, posted an article claiming that they had been given access to the "short-form" birth certificate created, issued, and stamped in June 2007 by the Department of Health in Hawaii and held on file with the Obama campaign. That report is here:

It does seem like quite a coincidence that of all the investigative sources across the country, that this website, funded directly by Obama's actions with the Annenberg Foundation, is the one that has obtained, examined, and posted the conclusions related to their investigation. It is also less than comforting that the certificate was physically produced just over a year ago, albeit stamped by a government employee working within a Democrat-run administration. If the certificate is genuine, then it attests to the fact that in June 2007, when it was produced, that the Hawaii database listed Obama as born in Honolulu, Hawaii. It is this glaring shortcoming of the short-form, though, that appears to have led Berg in his lawsuit to request a certified copy of the original "vaulted" "long-form" birth certificate that the state is required by law to have on file. That form would be the original paper form produced immediately after Obama's birth in 1961, and not a newly printed certificate based on data that could easily have been manipulated within the DOH's records database.

This from the FactCheck article:
"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."
Note that FactCheck doesn't describe the real difference between the short and long-form documents, other than the info in them. But the long-form document is the paper form filled out at the time of birth. It is not created by printing information out of a modern database. FactCheck didn't think its readers needed to really understand the difference.

So why doesn't the Hawaii DOH offer a copy of the long-form birth certificate? Because all the data in the long-form is not included in the database? No. You can't print out a copy of the original long-form from a database unless it was scanned into it and stored in an image document type, like a PDF of JPG. But once you've scanned it, you've opened the door to manipulation of that document. And if there is no long-form document, then you have nothing to scan in the first place. Regardless, you can't store a piece of paper in a digital database. Paper is stored in a physical location. Locked up hopefully where it can exist for decades. Like in a vault.

Anyone who works with databases also knows that data is easily manipulated in a database, and that without the proper protections, Mickey Mouse could be entered into the Hawaii DOH database and given a birth date, and when a short-form certificate is requested, a certified and stamped printout could be obtained without much issue. How and from what source was Obama's birth information entered into that modern digital database? But if someone asked for a copy of the original stored paper copy of the long-form for Mickey from 1961, it would be much more difficult to come up with one if one never existed. Creating a forgery would be a real challenge, in fact.

For an office as important as President of the United States, all Berg seems to be asking is for proof beyond data entered into a modern database that this candidate, was in fact, born in the USA. And given the contradiction between family members when asked the simple question of where Obama was born, Berg's request is not unreasonable. This could all be settled if a copy of that 47 year old long-form document would be provided.

In contrast, John McCain's eligibility to be president was also challenged. Born overseas to two US citizens, McCain immediately released all the relevant information and the issue of his eligibility was put to rest. If Obama was born in Hawaii, why is he seemingly doing everything he can to avoid satisfying this basic Constitutional requirement?

If it exists, would not Barack Obama be able to request such a copy with a simple phone call or signed request if required? If it exists, why is he fighting the request? No one can doubt that the Obama campaign does not understand the difference between the short and long forms. And yet, they are content to leave these questions unanswered and rely on a document printed from a modern database one year ago.

No comments: