Friday, October 31, 2008

Show Us The Birth Certificate Hawaii !


Chiyome Fukino
Brandeis BS 1972
MD University of Hawaii 1976


State of Hawaii Director Department of Health


Dr. Alvin Onaka
State of Hawaii
Chief of Vital Records Office


Hot off the presses !

This story broke in Hawaii about 3 hours ago:

START STORY

Hawaii DOH Talks About Sen. Obama's Birth Certificate
Written by KGMB9 News - news@kgmb9.com
October 31, 2008 11:43 AM
The Department of Health has released a statement about Senator Barack Obama's official birth certificate.

There have been talk among some chat rooms that Senator Obama was not born in Hawaii, or even America for that matter, and therefore is ineligible to run for the office of President.
There have been various requests for copies of his Hawaii birth certificate to the Department of Health, all which have to be turned down.

"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," said DOH Director Chiyome Fukino.

"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."

Fukino adds that no state leaders, including Governor Lingle, has asked the certificate be handled in any way different from any one else's vital records in state possession.

END STORY

Does this confirm that Barack Obama is a natural born citizen ?
Is the question of his eligibility for the office of the Presidency finally settled ?

Not at all...

Note the careful language from the State Department of Health officials in this press release:

"[we] 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."

They did not say we have the long form copy of his birth certificate signed by his attending physician at Kapiolani Hospital on August 4, 1961.

It's an original birth certificate "in accordance with state policies and procedures."

One of those state policies and procedures was the acceptance of "after the fact" birth certificates under the 1911 Hawaii Birth Certificate program. This program was for residents of Hawaii over the age of one who did not register their birth with the state originally. The state accepted some "alternate form of documentation." This "alternate form of documentation", once accepted under this program that was in existence until 1972, becomes "an original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

How convenient that this press conference is held on the eve of the Presidential election just a couple weeks after Barack Obama went to visit his sick grandmother.

Here's the way Barack Obama can be straight forward and honest with the American people:

Authorize the release of this document that Dr. Chiyome and Dr. Onaka both say they've seen and verified.

If it's an August 4, 1961 long form birth certificate signed by an attending physician at a Honolulu hospital, then it's case closed. You've met the burden of proof.

But if it's some alternate document introduced later...depending on the contents of that document, we may still conclude you've not met the burden of proof.

But show us the document State of Hawaii and Barack Obama ! Let it see the light of day.

And by the way, while we're at it, here's a question for Dr. Chiyome and Dr. Onaka:
Can you please explain to me why you are violating state law by showing us the document, but not violating state law by telling us you've seen the document ? Did you receive authorization from Barack Obama to (1) look at the document and (2) tell us you've looked at the document ?

Another question on the original birth certificate Dr. Chiyome and Dr. Onaka verified:

Is it:

(1) A Certificate of Hawaiian Birth created under the 1911 "after the fact program ?

or

( 2) or is it a standard birth certificate created from the original document provided contemporaneously by the birth hospital ?

And yet another question on this carefully parsed statement:

"[we] 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."

What exactly does "original birth certificate on record" mean ?

Does it mean they physically viewed the hard copy of the original birth certificate ? Or does it mean they've reviewed the information technology procedures by which the abstracted data was placed into the State of Hawaii birth certificate data base?

And... why a released statement and not a press conference ?


Rush Limbaugh predicted this would happen.

Once more, El Rushbo is on target.

Definitions from Dictionary.com


On record

existing in a publication, document, file, etc.:


File

(1) a folder, cabinet, or other container in which papers, letters, etc., are arranged in convenient order for storage or reference.

(2) a collection of papers, records, etc., arranged in convenient order: to make a file for a new account.

(3) a collection of related data or program records stored on some input/output or auxiliary storage medium.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

State of Hawaii confirms birth certificate is genuine.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/31/state-declares-obama-birth-certificate-genuine-1/

or any number of news sources online.

smrstrauss said...

Are you saying that these two officials are colluding with Obama to hide the fact that he was born in some other country?

Because that is the implication of what you have written.

Let us assume that Obama was born in Kenya. And that he has a Hawaii birth certificate. Then he would have submitted some alternative form of documentation. What would that have been? A document from Kenya? Would Hawaii have used that to issue a Hawaii birth certificate?

Obama has used his Hawaii birth certificate to get a US passport. So the State Department has looked at the certificate and not noticed anything about him being born outside the USA.

To be sure, his family could have forged documents saying that he was born in Hawaii and submitted them to the records office, about forty something years ago. But why would they do that – did they think that the kid would run for president forty something years later?

Now examine the situation of these two officials, they look into the files and see something from Kenya. They then issue a carefully crafted, but deliberately misleading statement to the effect that the birth certificate is all in order and of course there is no mention of Kenya. That gives the impression that he was born in Hawaii. Why would they do that?

Do they love Obama to the extent that they want to mislead the world?

They, like most officials, have taken an oath to protect the Constitution. To give the impression that someone was born in Hawaii when he was born in Kenya would seem to be an offense against the constitution. And, of course, it is deliberately misleading. If it ever were shown that they knew that Obama was born outside of the USA and didn’t mention it or hint at it, they would be in serious difficulty. At the very least, they’d never get a job under a Republican administration again.

So why do it?

So now there is at least decent evidence that he was born in Hawaii. Obama and his sister agree he was born in Hawaii; what does it matter if they cannot agree on the hospital? People mix up things like that all the time. And there is the certificate of live birth, and there is this statement from two officials in the Hawaii government, which happens to be under a Republican administration.

What evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? There is said to be an audio recording of his grandmother saying that he was born in Kenya and she was there to see it. However, the guys who claim to have that recording have never played it for anyone.

BirdFLU said...

The wording of the press release is definitely odd. It reeks of an administrator trying to imply something without actually saying it, but cover their ass at the same time. She could have simply said "I've seen his documents and he was born in here in Hawaii." Yes I know about the law regulating who can see it, I'm sure Obama would let her slide if that's all she said. But that's not what she said.

I was only mildly interested in this issue before, but her statement makes me more suspicious, not less. I've had too much experience reading bureaucrat-ese to not be suspicious now.

Michael Patrick Leahy said...

To Anonymous and smstrauss:

If you read the press release carefully, the officials are not declaring they've verified the original birth certificate document. The language is very parsed.

They are confirming they've seen that the State of Hawaii has the original birth certificate "on record" consistent with state policies and procedures.

This could simply be a review of the entries into the birth certificate database, which is a far different matter than touching, seeing, and verifying the original document.

IF they are talking about viewing an original document (which may not be the case as I point out above), smrstrauss is right in suggesting that this original document could be a Kenyan birth certificate (unlikely) or some other alternate birth document (more likely) submitted under the 1911 Hawaii Birth Certificate program.

I'll have another blogpost, incorporating your contentions and responses to your contentions later today.

Michael Patrick Leahy said...

smrstrauss has left a new comment on your post "Show Us The Birth
Certificate Hawaii !":

Are you saying that these two officials are colluding with Obama to
hide the fact that he was born in some other country?

Because that is the implication of what you have written.

Let us assume that Obama was born in Kenya. And that he has a Hawaii
birth certificate. Then he would have submitted some alternative form
of documentation. What would that have been? A document from Kenya?
Would Hawaii have used that to issue a Hawaii birth certificate?

Obama has used his Hawaii birth certificate to get a US passport. So
the State Department has looked at the certificate and not noticed
anything about him being born outside the USA.

To be sure, his family could have forged documents saying that he was
born in Hawaii and submitted them to the records office, about forty
something years ago. But why would they do that – did they think that
the kid would run for president forty something years later?

Now examine the situation of these two officials, they look into the
files and see something from Kenya. They then issue a carefully
crafted, but deliberately misleading statement to the effect that the
birth certificate is all in order and of course there is no mention of
Kenya. That gives the impression that he was born in Hawaii. Why would
they do that?

Do they love Obama to the extent that they want to mislead the world?

They, like most officials, have taken an oath to protect the
Constitution. To give the impression that someone was born in Hawaii
when he was born in Kenya would seem to be an offense against the
constitution. And, of course, it is deliberately misleading. If it ever
were shown that they knew that Obama was born outside of the USA and
didn’t mention it or hint at it, they would be in serious difficulty.
At the very least, they’d never get a job under a Republican
administration again.

So why do it?

So now there is at least decent evidence that he was born in Hawaii.
Obama and his sister agree he was born in Hawaii; what does it matter
if they cannot agree on the hospital? People mix up things like that
all the time. And there is the certificate of live birth, and there is
this statement from two officials in the Hawaii government, which
happens to be under a Republican administration.

What evidence is there that he was born in Kenya? There is said to be
an audio recording of his grandmother saying that he was born in Kenya
and she was there to see it. However, the guys who claim to have that
recording have never played it for anyone.

ahrcanum said...

You presented the facts that we still don't know the truth about That One's birth very well. Every American has to question this. I also linked to your blog.

Tom Morrison said...

The anti-Obama nutcases are astounding. You would have us believe that Obama's parents somehow falsified his birth place so that he could someday run for President. Brilliant! Let us know the date of your scheduled lobotomy.

Michael Patrick Leahy said...

Tom,

Thank you for your comment.

Please note that I am not asserting that Obama was not born in Hawaii, though I am skeptical of his claim.

I am asserting that he has not met the burden of proof to show with absolute certainty he was born in Hawaii.

Under Hawaii law, it is possible that his mother or grandparents legally submitted an alternate birth document to the State of Hawaii after Barack Obama was one year old, and that alternate document does not include unequivocal proof he was born in Hawaii.

All I am asking for is that Barack Obama authorize the State of Hawaii to release that original birth certificate document, or short of that, that a court of competent jurisdiction instruct the state of Hawaii to release that original birth certificate document.

Senator Obama's refusal to release this document, which would be very easy for him to do, does nothing but fuel concerns that there is something about that document he wishes to conceal from the American voter.

smrstrauss said...

Re Obama being born in Kenya:



If Obama had been born in Kenya, there would be a record of his mother arriving in Kenya in the archives of the Kenya government.

The critics of Obama, who allege that he was born in Kenya, have not shown anything like this. All they would have to do is to go to those files in Kenya and show that Obama’s mother had been in Kenya in 1961. But they have nothing.

I listened to the tape, and it is not clear that Obama's grandmother understood the question. The translator (who is also apparently a relative) says repeatedly that Obama was born in Hawaii.

The officials in Hawaii say he was born in Hawaii.

The certificate (or certification, whatever) of live birth has been accepted as legal proof of Obama's birth in Hawaii by a court in Virginia. (Monday. See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

So, unless you (meaning the side that thinks Obama is not a natural born citizen) can PROVE that Obama was born in Kenya, this is an absurd claim.

After Berg, several other cases against Obama on the natural born citizen issue were brought in other states.
While most of them just did what the Berg case did, which was to rule that Berg had no standing to sue, some of the others looked at the “evidence” - and concluded that the stuff was absurd.

In Ohio, for example the judge (magistrate) said:

“(Neal) presented no witnesses but himself. From that testimony, it is abundantly clear that the allegations in [Neal]’s complaint concerning “questions” about Senator Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen” are derived from Internet sources, the accuracy of which has not been demonstrated to either Defendant Brunner or this Magistrate … Given the paucity of evidence… this Magistrate cannot conclude that Defendant Brunner has abused her discretion in failing to launch an investigation into Senator Obama’s qualifications to hold the office of President of the United States. ” See:
http://www.oxfordpress.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/31/ws103108obamasuit.html

In Virginia, which was just ruled on yesterday, the judge went further and said that the certificate of live birth was good proof that Obama was born in Hawaii, and there was NO proof presented that he was born anywhere else.

Here is a report from a web posting that is not official, of course, but it seems accurate mainly because the fellow who posted it was AGAINST Obama. He is disappointed, but accepts the ruling. You can find this post at : (
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2123806/posts)

(Note that sometimes the author correctly puts COLB correctly and sometimes he types it as CLOB, but he means certificate of live birth throughout.)

Quotes:

The Court made the following findings:

1. The Certification of Live Birth presented to the court is unquestionably authentic.

The court noted that the certification had a raised seal from the state of Hawaii, had a stamp bearing the signature of the registrar of vital statistics. The court found “wholly unpersuasive” any of the internet claims that the birth certificate was altered in any way. Furthermore, the document itself was accompanied by an affidavit from the State Health Director (of Hawaii) verifying that the document is an authentic certification of live birth. The court held that there could be no doubt that the document was authentic unless one believed that the state of Hawaii’s health department were in on an elaborate and complex conspiracy – and that there is not a shred of evidence that this is the case.

2. The Certification of Live Birth establishes that Mr. Obama is a natural born citizen.

The affidavit of the State Health Director states that the information on the CLOB is identical to the information on the “vault” copy of the birth certificate, and that both documents establish that Mr. Obama was born in Honolulu. The Court noted that the CLOB is valid for all citizenship purposes. The court noted our argument that the COLB is not valid for determining citizenship, but referred us to Hawaiian law that states otherwise. “There is no difference between a certificate and a certification of live birth in the eyes of the state. For instance, either can be used to confirm U.S. citizenship to obtain a passport or state ID.” The court found that Hawaiian law makes the COLB valid for all purposes with the exception of determining native Hawaiian heritage for certain state and federal benefits. The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.

3. For that reason, 8 U.S.C. §1401(g), which at the relevant time provided as follows:

“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: ***(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:…..
is irrelevant to this matter, as Mr. Obama was conclusively born in Hawaii.

4. Mr. Obama did hold dual citizenship in the U.S. and Kenya until he became an adult. When Barack Obama Jr. was born Kenya was a British colony. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children: “British Nationality Act of 1948 (Part II, Section 5): Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth.” In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UK. Obama’s UK citizenship became an Kenyan citizenship on Dec. 12, 1963, when Kenya formally gained its independence from the United Kingdom. The court noted that Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:

1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…

2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall, if his father becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subsection (1), become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963.
Thus the court held that as a citizen of the UK who was born in Kenya, Obama’s father automatically received Kenyan citizenship via subsection (1). So given that Obama qualified for citizen of the UK status at birth and given that Obama’s father became a Kenyan citizen via subsection (1), thus Obama did in fact have Kenyan citizenship in 1963.

However, the court further held that the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults. Kenya recognizes dual citizenship for children, but Kenya’s Constitution specifies that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possesses citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship and swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya. The court held that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama has ever renounced his U.S. citizenship or sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.

The court held that there was no legal requirement that Mr. Obama renounce his Kenyan citizenship or affirm his U.S. citizenship in order to maintain his status as a natural born citizen.

5. Mr. Obama did not lose his U.S. Citizenship based on the acts of his parents, including adoption by an Indonesian citizen. The Court held that no action taken by the parents of an American child can strip that child of his citizenship. The court cited to the 1952 Immigration & Nationality Act, Title III, Chapter 3, Sections 349 and 355, which was in effect in the late 1960s when Obama went to Indonesia, and which stated that a minor does not lose his US citizenship upon the naturalization of his parents or any other actions of his parents, so long as the minor returns to the US and establishes permanent US residency before the age of 21. Thus the adoption of Obama did not serve to strip him of his U.S. citizenship. The fact that Indonesian law does not allow dual citizenship is irrelevant, as U.S. law controls. Furthermore, the Court held that traveling on a foreign passport does not strip an American of his citizenship. The Court noted first that there was no evidence that Mr. Obama traveled on an Indonesian passport (Mr. Berg and others we reached out to for evidence never provided any evidence of this claim or any other of the claims we could have used some proof of.) Nonetheless, the court held that such travel does not divest an American of his citizenship.

The Court makes other holdings and findings that I won’t bother you with here. Needless to say, the decision is wholly against us. The court finds the claims against Mr. Obama’s citizenship “wholly unpersuasive and bordering on the frivolous, especially in light of the complete absence of any first-hand evidence on any critical issue” and further classifies it as “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort, fueled by nothing than internet rumor and those who truly want to believe egging each other on.”

I like the part about “conspiracy theory of the lowest sort.”

Repeat: “The court held that if Mr. Obama were born elsewhere and the birth registered in Hawaii, the “place of birth” line on the COLB would reflect that fact. The court stated that there could be no doubt that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii and that any argument to the contrary was fanciful and relied on completely unsubstantiated internet rumors.”

smrstrauss said...

Further to the discussion:

Re: "he has not met the burden of proof to show with absolute certainty he was born in Hawaii."

Well, as I posted earlier, the Virginia court has ruled that the certificate or certification of real birth is authentic and does prove that he was born in Hawaii.

But there is another way to look at it, which is that the burden of proof is on those who claim that he was not born in Hawaii. Why? Well until this election no one ever asked a presidential candidate (much less a president) to prove that he was born in the USA.

I read somewhere that Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, admitted being born in Mexico, but he ran for president anyway (never got out of the primaries, so it wasn't a constitutional issue) but the point was that he thought so little about the clause in the constitution that he told everyone he wasn't born in the USA.

In any case, if you look at it as the critics having to prove that Obama was born somewhere else, everything gets easy. And, as I said before, it should be easy to prove it IF IT IS TRUE. All you have to do is check the records of arrivals in Kenya in 1961, and if Obama's mother is on it -- you have a case.

Re: "he has not met the burden of proof to show with absolute certainty he was born in Hawaii."

As I said, we have never asked candidates or presidents to prove with absolute certainty that they were born in the USA before. The document Obama has produced was accepted by a court in Virgina and is sufficient to get a US passport. The burden of proof is therefore on the ones who claim he was born somewhere else.

I have avoided discussing the details of dual nationality. There's nothing in the constitution that says you cannot have dual nationality, and there have been several Supreme Court cases saying that you cannot lose your US citizenship simply because of the actions of your parents.

Michael Patrick Leahy said...

Smrstrauss,

Thanks for your posts.

I will comment on your first post here:

I am pretty sure the Virginia Court Case you cite from Free Republic is a bogus report. Note that there is no citation of the Plaintiff or Defendant.

I would go back and check it out.

Also, look at the language of the decision. It states things that seem unlikely to have happened, such as the Director of Health of the State of Hawaii offering an affidavit to the Court.

As far as I can tell, all she has ever done publicly on the matter is issue a 3 paragraph statement on October 31, 2008.

If I'm wrong that the Virginia case you cite is bogus, please let me know.

Michael Patrick Leahy said...

Smrstrauss,

With regards to your second post,

"But there is another way to look at it, which is that the burden of proof is on those who claim that he was not born in Hawaii. Why? Well until this election no one ever asked a presidential candidate (much less a president) to prove that he was born in the USA."

I think the courts will disagree with you concerning the burden of proof to establish natural born status.

The Constitution is quite clear. Natural born status is a MUST for eligibility to serve as President.

smrstrauss said...

Re: I think the courts will disagree with you concerning the burden of proof to establish natural born status.

Okay. So let's wait for the courts. When do you think they will act?

Don't get your hopes up over the Berg case. The Supreme Court has not agreed to even consider the facts of where Obama was born. Dec. 1 is the date by which Obama and the US government (representing the US Election Commission) must merely reply to Berg's complaint that lower courts dismissed his suit unfairly -- since they ruled that he had no standing to sue.

In the unlikely event that the Supreme Court rules that Berg has standing to sue, all that they would do is send it back to a lower court for finding on the facts.

And what are the facts? Is there any proof that Obama was born anywhere other than Hawaii?

Still, if a court -- not a blog -- asks him to show his original birth certificate, I have no doubt that he will show it. He is not stonewalling. He just never has been asked to show anything other than the COLB, which Hawaii tells him is good proof that he was born in Hawaii.

But, it is going to take a long time if ever before any court asks to see any document. The Berg case is likely to be dismissed by the Supreme Court, and then what do you do?

Anonymous said...

ON the VIRGINIA CASE...it is BOGUS.

Who brought the COLB into COURT?

The Judge couldn't haev looked at any COLB because there was none for him to look at. If there was a COLB in court than it would be looked at by a Documents Expert a KEY WITNESS to give the court a Professional Opinion and teh Plaintiff would DEFINITLY ask for this. This expert would probably have a court order to go to Hawaii and be able to Confirm the info with the VAULTED ORIGINAL.

This all sounds BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS.

If Obama had the COLB he would've BROUGHT it into court befor eteh election in fear that the story would get out.

PS Look at the pics in Factcheck.org especially the ones with the Embossed Seal you can;t make out ONE SINGLE letter all seals I have ever seen it is very clear to read letters and words. Doesn't anyone in HAWAII have a access to a copy of teh EMBOSSED SEAL...that would DEBUNK this quickly. That seal BOGUS and it was done in purpose to avoid heavy jail time...because it is an EMBOSSED of NOTHING....therefore not forging an official seal.


BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS

smrstrauss said...

It is true that I cannot certify that the Virginia case is authentic. I relied on a Web post that seemed genuine.

However, this does not change the basic facts. There is NO evidence that Obama was born in Kenya or anywhere outside of the USA.

The certification of live birth and the statements of the officials in Hawaii show that he was born in Hawaii.

The documents shown on line are about as vague as documents on line are likely to be. They are not evidence. However, we know that there is a certificate of live birth because of the officials in Hawaii, who have gone beyond the simple document to say that they have looked in the file and found a real birth certificate.

Then, you may ask, why didn't Obama post it? Well, why should he? Who, other than bloggers, has asked for him to make the real birth certificate available?

To be sure, you could say the law cases, such as Berg's case. But the answer is that only IF those cases come to trial and IF a judge were to ask for his birth certificate, would Obama really know that someone wanted to see his birth certificate. In that case, he would provide it.

What are you going to do if (as likely) the Supreme Court refuses to take the Berg case or, I understand there is another one, the other one?

Why not just relax until there is either a court case or more evidence out of Kenya?

Anonymous said...

Obama's birth certificate doesn't look real, mine is type with a type writer, obama is older than I am.
Something fishy here.

Margaret said...

Dear Sir: I have heard over and over that you can't see a birth certificate unless you or a relative request it in Hawaii. This website which is an offical Hawaii vital records spot says there are NO RESTRICTIONS. www.birthrecordsearch.us/hawaiibirthrecordssearch.html

Anonymous said...

"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," said DOH Director Chiyome Fukino.

So, all of the other vagueness aside....I personally like the "persons who do not have a tangible interest" line.

Correct me if I am wrong, but being an American, don't I have (much less a requesting legal party) a tangible interest in this?

I am not saying he is or is not a U.S. born citizen, I just am really curious about that particular quote. Seems to me that any and all Americans have a tangible (even a vested) interest in this.

Anonymous said...

If you go to one of the Hawaii websites where you can order a birth certificate there is a statement that says ANYONE can order a copy of a birth certificate that there is no restriction. It mentions no year or any other restriction. Now both statements are contradictory so which is correct. I like you am really getting curious as to why he won't release is birth certificate. It could be so simple to settle everything. There has got to be an underlying reason.

Anonymous said...

You nailed it. If Obama is playing lawyer games before he is in, then what make us think he will not throw the constitution out on a technicality?

visit Moosegal.com

Anonymous said...

"This website which is an offical Hawaii vital records spot says there are NO RESTRICTIONS. www.birthrecordsearch.us/hawaiibirthrecordssearch.html"

It's a commercial website with NO affiliation to any government, Hawaiian or otherwise.
From the "Important note" at the bottom of the webpage: "Birthrecordsearch.us service has no affiliation or connection with the Government."

Furthermore, the site specifically states that it deals in "public records" only, which does not include birth certificates or certificates of live birth, which can only be requested by family members.

Also, note consistent misspellings and omitted words throughout the text on the page. This leaves serious doubt the veracity of information obtained from the site.

Anonymous said...

It is said that Obama's mother did not file any of the required documentations. That his grand mother did. To be eligible for state and federal aid, because Obama's father had deserted her as he had his other "wives" she needed aid. This was the only way to get it. I am a democrat and I wish for us to get this country back in shape. But darn it, I have had doubts about Obama and his birth certificate from the first. Way way back in 2007 when he started rumbling about running I wrote my democratic senator, and several of the republican senators and informed them that I didn't think Obama was a legal US citizen. None answered. If Obama would only show the original long form birth certificate from the microfilm this would all end. Since he hasn't there is definitely something wrong.