Posted on 06/26/2011 12:57:41 PM PDT by steadcom
According to the previous Republican Administration in Hawaii and the current Democratic administration, Zero’s original long form still exists and is in a bound volume along with other 1961 long forms at the Hawaii Department of Health
NEWS RELEASE
NEIL ABERCROMBIE
GOVERNOR
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 27, 2011
HAWAI‘I HEALTH DEPARTMENT GRANTS PRESIDENT OBAMA’S REQUEST FOR CERTIFIED COPIES OF ‘LONG FORM’ BIRTH CERTIFICATE
HONOLULU – The Hawai’i State Health Department recently complied with a request by President Barack Obama for certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “long form” birth certificate.
“We hope that issuing certified copies of the original Certificate of Live Birth to President Obama will end the numerous inquiries related to his birth in Hawai’i,” Hawai’i Health Director Loretta Fuddy said. “I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai’i.”
On April 22, 2011, President Obama sent a letter to Director Fuddy, requesting two certified copies of his original Certificate of Live Birth. Also on that day, Judith Corley, the President’s personal attorney, made the same request in writing on behalf of the President. (Letters from President Obama and Ms. Corley are attached).
On April 25, 2011, pursuant to President Obama’s request, Director Fuddy personally witnessed the copying of the original Certificate of Live Birth and attested to the authenticity of the two copies. Dr. Alvin Onaka, the State Registrar, certified the copies.
President Obama authorized Ms. Corley to pick up the documents. On April 25, 2011, Ms. Corley appeared in person at the Hawai’i State Department of Health building in Honolulu, paid the requisite fee, and was given the two certified copies, a response letter from Director Fuddy to President Obama, and a receipt for payment. (Letter from Director Fuddy is attached).
In June 2008, President Obama released his Certification of Live Birth, which is sometimes referred to in the media as a “short form” birth certificate. Both documents are legally sufficient evidence of birth in the State of Hawai’i, and both provide the same fundamental information: President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawai„i at 7:24 p.m. on August 4, 1961, to mother Stanley Ann Dunham and father Barack Hussein Obama.
In 2001, the Hawai’i State Department of Health began computer-generating vital statistics records. Since then, its longstanding policy and practice has been to issue and provide only the computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth, and to not produce photocopies of actual records to fulfill requests for certified copies of certificates.
Director Fuddy made an exception for President Obama by issuing copies of the original birth certificate. The departmental policy to issue only computer-generated Certifications of Live Birth remains in effect for all birth records that have been computerized. Director Fuddy, in her capacity as Health Director, has the legal authority to approve the process by which copies of birth records are made.
“The exception made in this case to provide President Obama with a copy of his original Certificate of Live Birth was done according to the letter of the law,” Attorney General David Louie said. “Director Fuddy exercised her legal authority in a completely appropriate manner in this unique circumstance. We will continue to maintain the strict confidentiality requirements afforded to vital statistics records, such as birth certificates. These requirements help protect the integrity of the records, and keep us all safe from crimes, such as identity theft.”
Governor Neil Abercrombie stated: “Considering all of the investigations that have been done and the information that has been provided, no rational person can question the President’s citizenship. We have found a way – once again – to confirm what we already knew: the President was born here in Hawai„i. State officials of both parties have verified that President Obama’s birth records show that he was born in Honolulu.
“President Obama’s mother and father were dear friends of mine, and we must respect their memory. It is an insult to the President, his parents and to the Office to suggest that he was not born in Hawai’i. The State of Hawai’i has done everything within our legal ability to disabuse these conspiracy theorists. We granted the President’s request for certified copies of his birth certificate so we can all move on from this unfortunate distraction and focus on the real issues affecting people today.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_Release_Birth_Certificate_042711.pdf
Notice what they say has been the case since 2001, and what the federal law passed in 1996 said was acceptable. Those two things are very complementary.
The only “evidence” that Stanley was in WA State are “transcripts” emailed to Corsi, and they had the wrong date.
That’s it.
Anna Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham are two different people.
“President Obama’s mother and father were dear friends of mine, and we must respect their memory. It is an insult to the President, his parents and to the Office to suggest that he was not born in Hawai’i. The State of Hawai’i has done everything within our legal ability to disabuse these conspiracy theorists. We granted the President’s request for certified copies of his birth certificate so we can all move on from this unfortunate distraction and focus on the real issues affecting people today.”
*******
April 27, 2011 to June 28, 2011 and KAPIOLANI HOSPITAL: It has been two months since President Obama released his long form birth certificate to great fanfare at a White House press conference on April 27, 2011, but yet Kapiolani Hospital officials have remained CONSPICUOUSLY silent during those two months---and still counting---that is, they have not come out publicly to verify that indeed President Obama was born there on Aug. 4, 1961 as it is stated on President Obama's long form birth certificate. Why is that?
1. DEADLY DAGGER THROGH HEART OF BIRTHER NATION? President Obama and Kapiiolani officials know that they could drive a final deadly dagger through the heart of birther nation today if Obama would only give Kapiolani officials permission to let reporters examine Obama's records for Aug. 4, 1961, but for some unknown reason, President Obama is playing hardball, and he won't allow Kapiolani officials to let reporters examine his records for Aug. 4, 1961, Obama's claimed birth date.
2. Why is President Obama playing hardball?
3. As I understand it, the information in the Kapiolani records would contain the same routine information that is on Obama's long form certificate, because, obviously, Obama's long form birth certificate originated at Kapiolani hospital, if Obama was indeed born at Kapiolani hospital as he claims.
4. So, again, what is the big deal? That is, what is so complicated about President Obama simply giving Kapiolani officials permission today to let reporters examine hospital records that will verify what is already on Obama's long form birth certifcate that Obama gladly released on April 27, 2011?
5. Myself, I believe that the longer President Obama and Kapiolani officials refuse to let reporters examine President Obama's Aug.4. 1961 records, the more VOTES President Obama will LOSE on election day Nov. 2012, because VOTERS will start thinking that President Obama must be hiding something if he won't allow Kapiolani officials to let reporters examine his Aug. 4, 1961 birth records.
6.. OBAMA'S "OCTOBER" SURPRISE? If Obama is waiting to set a trap for birthers by waiting for just the right moment to release his Kapiolani records, then I say that he better not wait too long, because VOTERS might become so angry that Obama waited so long to release his hospital records, that they will take their anger out in the voting booth and VOTE AGAINST President Obama in Nov. 2012.
7. HAWAII AND GOV. ABERCROMBRIE: Why won't President Obama and the governor give reporters permission to examine the original birth certificate, because President Obama has already released a copy of his long form to the public to great fanfare?
8. That is, in his statement above, Gov. Abercrombrie said "It is an insult to the President, his parents and to the Office to suggest that he was not born in Hawaii’i. The State of Hawaii’i has done everything within our legal ability to disabuse these conspiracy theorists", but has Hawaii done everything as it says it has?
9. I say "no", because if President Obama and Gov. Abercrombrie REALLY wanted to do everything in their power to "disabuse those conspiracy theorists", they would allow reporters to examine President Obama's original long form birth certificate to make sure that the long form President Obama showed the public on April 27, 2011 was authentic.
10. But this is the weird action on the part of Hawaii officials like registrar ONAKA: The officials now claim that they cannot let reporters examine the original long form birth certificate because of Hawaii privacy laws! Unbelievable.
11. Huh? Doesn't the phrase "in the public domain" now kick in since President Obama has already released a copy of his long form to the public on April 27, 2011?
12. Myself, I can't help but believe that President Obama and Hawaii officials like Gov. Abercrombie are HIDING something by not allowing reporters to examine an original birth certificate, a copy of which has already been released to the public on April 27, 2011.
13. PRIVACY LAWS? I also believe that President Obama and Hawaii officials like Gov. Abercrombrie are looking like FOOLS by hiding behind privacy laws when President Obama has already released a copy of his long form birth certificate on April 27, 2011.
If you read deeper into Hawaii's laws you will discover that they are supposed to provide a document to any election official which requests it for the purpose of an election. However, if he is adopted, do they produce the REAL original, or do they produce the amended fake?
No judge has issued a court order for the state of Hawaii to produce a certified copy of the Obama birth record.
Exactly the problem.
If such a court order were to be issued, Hawaii would produce a certified copy of the record.
Unless the court order specifically demands a copy of the ORIGINAL record, it is useless, because an amended fake tells us nothing which can be accepted as true.
A copy would be fine, provided that it is certified as a copy of the ORIGINAL document, not an "abstract of the record on file." Someone needs to put their neck on the line and swear under penalty of law that the document shown is the actual document produced on or about august 4th, 1961, and that it has not been amended or changed since.
That’s it.
Anna Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham are two different people.
Perhaps you are unaware of this, but Susan Blake (of Seattle) claims in an interview that Stanley Ann Dunham showed up at her house on or about August 25th, 1961 unfamiliar with diaper changing. Susan Blake specifically remembers the date because she was vacationing in Santa Monica but had to leave because of the fires there.
Susan Blake obviously knows and recognizes Stanley Ann Dunham because they went to school together. She is also quite certain as to the date. The difference between August 25 and August 19 is 6 days. Not a terribly significant difference in my opinion.
Do you know what the Hawaii State Supreme Court says that means? There are subtle nuances in legal jargon.
Although the folks in Hawaii state government seem to have the patter down to talk about their birth records data retrieval system correctly, some of them have indicated in the past they didn't really understand it.
Governor Ambercrombie, who has a really bad history of addictive substance abuse, probably couldn't understand it if he had wires stuffed in his head.
You do understand that a certain level the debate over Obama's birth certificate(s) is taking place with IDIOTS and BRAIN DAMAGED Democrat politicians.
That is certainly one of my primary concerns. I also have concern with the reluctance of a department to release independent images of something which is now supposedly in the public domain. It is the entire atmosphere of hide and obfuscate to which I object. We should not be playing such games when it comes to our President who by the very nature of the office should NOT be entitled to privacy regarding his records of eligibility or fitness for office.
Do you know what the Hawaii State Supreme Court says that means? There are subtle nuances in legal jargon.
Not specifically. I recognize it as a legal dodge which allows them to cover for amended records.
Not much recourse is available.
but the statement you are concerned with says "copy or abstract" I believe. Right? "Or" can be exclusive or inclusive ~ it's a one size fits all rubber stamp. I would imagine the guy who came up with that rubber stamp was faced with competing records systems, and court orders, and a variety of other administrative problems too deep for anyone to understand ~ and he probably did that in Ancient Sumer 5,500 years ago!
You may well have missed your chance to object.
The documents are good enough for usual uses, but inadequate for the Presidency. Remember, the Presidency is a co-equal branch of government with the Legislative and Judicial. Regarding constitutional matters his legitimacy is independent of theirs. They cannot pass a law that has an impact on his constitutional eligibility. They cannot make it easier or harder to establish his constitutional requirements by statute.
Consider for a moment that congress passed a statute declaring a year to be only ten months. By that interpretation, a 34 year old could meet the 35 year old age requirement. This is no different from congress passing a law which allows proof which is not really proof.
“5. Myself, I believe that the longer President Obama and Kapiolani officials refuse to let reporters examine President Obama’s Aug.4. 1961 records, the more VOTES President Obama will LOSE on election day Nov. 2012, because VOTERS will start thinking that President Obama must be hiding something if he won’t allow Kapiolani officials to let reporters examine his Aug. 4, 1961 birth records.”
Voters? Most voters only know that Obama duly shared his legal birth certificate. This country is not by, for, and of the People any more. It’s all about the MSM. Whatever they say is the truth, according to most Americans. The media owns us. Those of us who’ve caught on can’t get the facts out against the MSM onslaught. And the MSM questions every breath a conservative takes, and doesn’t question anything to do with Barack Obama ever.
Hawaii's courts do not trump Articles of the Constitution. Neither do Federal courts. Federal courts can declare anything they want, but that does not make it true.
“The full faith and credit clause appears to allow Hawaii’s courts and legislative bodies to do that ~ use subtle nuance ~ and make the rest of us live with it.”
Hawaii’s courts do not trump Articles of the Constitution. Neither do Federal courts. Federal courts can declare anything they want, but that does not make it true.
The “Full Faith and Credit clause” IS in an Article of the Constitution: Article IV, Section 1.
It is not about Hawai’i courts nor the federal courts, it’s in the original wording of the Constitution of the United States.
From your point of view, which branch of government should get to decide whether a candidate or a president has met the natural born citizen requirements of Article II, Section 1?
5. Myself, I believe that the longer President Obama and Kapiolani officials refuse to let reporters examine President Obama’s Aug.4. 1961 records, the more VOTES President Obama will LOSE on election day Nov. 2012, because VOTERS will start thinking that President Obama must be hiding something if he won’t allow Kapiolani officials to let reporters examine his Aug. 4, 1961 birth records.
It sounds as though you are offering me the fallacy of false choice. (Which of three branches when the choice is not limited to just them, or just one of them.)
It is the responsibility of all Americans to insure compliance with our laws. It OUGHT to have started with the Democrat party vetting his credentials, but as they are basically anti-American lunatics who will comply with no inconvenient law if they can get away with it, it is safe to say that that particular check on law breaking isn't any sort of impediment to lawlessness at all.
The next check SHOULD have been the Agents of each state tasked with confining eligibility for elections. The State election bureaucrats. They should have KNOWN what the requirements were, and they should have INSISTED on proof that he met them. They did not.
The NEXT check should have been the Electoral college who ALSO should have KNOWN what the requirements were, and insisted on Proof that he met them.
The NEXT check should have been both the Congress and the Courts. Again, they should have KNOWN what the requirements were and they should have REQUIRED proof that he met them.
Finally, it is the consent of the Governed. The larger body of American people who by passivity concede his authority and legitimacy over them or by opposing challenge it.
Let us not even speak of the role of the 4rth estate who were in fact collaborators with the usurpation of legitimate governance. But THEY should have sounded the alarm among the people at a time well before the Democrat Primaries.
Now we must go through the hard slog of attempts through a thoroughly frightened court, and efforts to inform public opinion without the Megaphone of the Media and Entertainment industries.
No state would refuse to accept Hawaii's document. Hawaii just insists on producing a document which doesn't prove anything, while pointing at rules saying they don't have to produce the real document in their possession.
As I keep insisting, Constitutional requirements are not subject to laws by congress or states, or "rules" created by the federal government courts. The ONLY thing constitutional articles are subject to is an Amendment. Unless you pull out one of those, you need to stop talking about rules inferior to the law they wish to circumvent.
No state would refuse to accept Hawaii’s document. Hawaii just insists on producing a document which doesn’t prove anything, while pointing at rules saying they don’t have to produce the real document in their possession.
As I keep insisting, Constitutional requirements are not subject to laws by congress or states, or “rules” created by the federal government courts. The ONLY thing constitutional articles are subject to is an Amendment. Unless you pull out one of those, you need to stop talking about rules inferior to the law they wish to circumvent.
Who is it who determines whether constitutional provisions have been appropriately implemented, in your opinion?
It sounds as though you are offering me the fallacy of false choice. (Which of three branches when the choice is not limited to just them, or just one of them.)
It is the responsibility of all Americans to insure compliance with our laws. It OUGHT to have started with the Democrat party vetting his credentials, but as they are basically anti-American lunatics who will comply with no inconvenient law if they can get away with it, it is safe to say that that particular check on law breaking isn’t any sort of impediment to lawlessness at all.
The next check SHOULD have been the Agents of each state tasked with confining eligibility for elections. The State election bureaucrats. They should have KNOWN what the requirements were, and they should have INSISTED on proof that he met them. They did not.
The NEXT check should have been the Electoral college who ALSO should have KNOWN what the requirements were, and insisted on Proof that he met them.
The NEXT check should have been both the Congress and the Courts. Again, they should have KNOWN what the requirements were and they should have REQUIRED proof that he met them.
Finally, it is the consent of the Governed. The larger body of American people who by passivity concede his authority and legitimacy over them or by opposing challenge it.
Let us not even speak of the role of the 4rth estate who were in fact collaborators with the usurpation of legitimate governance. But THEY should have sounded the alarm among the people at a time well before the Democrat Primaries.
Now we must go through the hard slog of attempts through a thoroughly frightened court, and efforts to inform public opinion without the Megaphone of the Media and Entertainment industries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.