Correction on the birth certificate issue

I am informed by a reader, who happens to be an M.D., that I have misstated the birth certificate issue. In the entry on Gov. Abercrombie’s termination of his quest to release Obama’s birth certificate, I spoke of the “supposed certificate of life birth that was displayed on pro-Obama websites in early 2008.” This was incorrect.

My previous understanding, based on general reading about the birth issue, was that a “certificate of live birth” is not the official document verifying the facts of a person’s birth. The official document, I thought, was the “long form birth certificate” (that part of my understanding was correct). The image of a document was that was displayed at The Daily Kos and other pro-Obama sites in 2008 was, I thought, a certificate of live birth. Moreover, because it had been changed, it was patently a fraud.

In reality, that fraudulent document was not a certificate of live birth, but a certification of live birth. They are two different things. A certification of live birth is a secondary document that is created at some time after a person’s birth, referring to the underlying official document, which is known variously as the certificate of live birth, or the long form birth certificate, or, simply, the birth certificate.

For yet further confusion, the certification of live birth is referred to as the COLB. The certificate of live birth is NOT referred to as the COLB.

In the past, Hawaii would issue a certification of live birth in cases where a person had been born somewhere other than Hawaii and needed an official record of his original birth data. So, for example, a person born in Tokyo who had moved to Hawaii would have Hawaii issue a certification of live birth verifying that he had been born in Tokyo, and referring to the data in his original, Japanese birth certificate.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 22, 2011 01:29 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):