Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jamese777

We talked about this already. There was no news release statement from the health director that says that Obama was born in any hospital in Hawaii. The health director wrote in an e-mail that that she had consulted the Attorney General before making her statment to make sure she didn’t say anything wrong.

The publicly released statement says that Hawaii “has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. In no where in that statement does the health director say where the birth certificate was from, so my guess is that the the governor has no real clue.

People asked the AG’s office for info related to the public release. The attorney’s office stated that this would violate client’s right to secrecy. However, when someone sued based on the fact that all information related to public statements must be made public per Hawaii law, the attorney’s office immediately denied having contact with the health director on this matter. Either the health director lied or the attorney’s office did.


213 posted on 08/03/2010 12:30:52 PM PDT by bravedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies ]


To: bravedog

We talked about this already. There was no news release statement from the health director that says that Obama was born in any hospital in Hawaii. The health director wrote in an e-mail that that she had consulted the Attorney General before making her statment to make sure she didn’t say anything wrong.

The publicly released statement says that Hawaii “has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures”. In no where in that statement does the health director say where the birth certificate was from, so my guess is that the the governor has no real clue.

People asked the AG’s office for info related to the public release. The attorney’s office stated that this would violate client’s right to secrecy. However, when someone sued based on the fact that all information related to public statements must be made public per Hawaii law, the attorney’s office immediately denied having contact with the health director on this matter. Either the health director lied or the attorney’s office did.


Is there a constitutional requirement that a president be born in a hospital?
Here are the Director of Health’s statements one more time:”
For Immediate Release: October 31, 2008
STATEMENT BY DR. CHIYOME FUKINO
“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawai‘i Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawai‘i.”

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”—July 27, 2009

Now who do you think that a judge is going to believe? The Governor of the state (who is a member of the opposing political party), the Director of Health, the Attorney General and the Registrar of Records or some plaintiff challenging Obama’s birthplace with no proof.

As one federal judge said: “A spurious claim questioning the President’s constitutional legitimacy may be protected by the First Amendment, but a Court’s placement of its imprimatur upon a claim that is so lacking in factual support that it is frivolous would undoubtedly
disserve the public interest.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons previously stated, Plaintiff’s motion for a
temporary restraining order is denied and Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety. Defendants shall recover their costs from Plaintiff.“–US Federal District Court Judge for the Middle District of Georgia Clay D. Land in dismissing “Rhodes v MacDonald” September 16, 2009


227 posted on 08/03/2010 1:08:18 PM PDT by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson