Incorrect. The Hawaii DOH would send them to both Hawaii newspapers, who would then print the birth announcements. This is old news. Try to keep up.
But seeings as how Hawaii would issue birth certificates to those NOT born in Hawaii, a filing for a birth certificate would have most likely triggered the same DOH information being sent to the newspapers - so yes, the birth announcement in the paper is certainly not sufficient to show birth in Hawaii.
Also, under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, if Hawaii says their “short form” (an “original” printed from their database is acceptable in a court of law, despite your assertions otherwise) is proof of birth within the State, the other States are obligated to accept that.
Recently a State Legislature was considering requiring issuance of a “long form” birth certificate for purposes of proving eligibility, only to find out that their OWN state only issues “short forms” also.
Sorry if my pointing out the truth on both these matters causes offense, I apologize in advance.
Incorrect. The Hawaii DOH would send them to both Hawaii newspapers, who would then print the birth announcements. This is old news. Try to keep up.
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/editing/
http://myveryownpointofview.wordpress.com/
For starters. There is also the fact, somewhere on that blog, that each newspaper - the Honolulu Advertiser and the Star Bulletin, had different lists of birth announcements. They were not the same. And, the total number of birth announcements was fewer than the actual number of births.
If the HDOH sent the announcements to both papers, then why do the papers have different lists? Some names appear in only one. Judging by the number of announcements compared to the number of births reported in the CDC, some names don’t appear in either. Some names appear 2-3 weeks after they appeared in the other paper.
And the HDOH was only authorized to release lists for the newspapers in 1976.
The “full faith and credit clause” also means that if Hawaii statute says that an amended and/or late birth certificate is not probative, other states have to abide by that as well. And that is precisely what HRS 338-17 says - which is inconvenient for Obama, because the HDOH has indirectly confirmed that Obama’s BC was amended in 2006. It is not legally valid. BEcause that amendment is not noted on the Factcheck or Fight the Smears COLB’s, those are known to be forgeries. The HDOH has also made other statements which indirectly confirm in 2 other ways that the Factcheck COLB is forged.
So what do we have? Forged birth announcements (see my last post) that wouldn’t even have come from the HDOH, online images of a forged COLB, and an amended (and most probably also late), and thus legally invalid, birth certificate at the HDOH.
It’s no wonder Obama doesn’t want a judge to look at this issue in earnest.