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

Skip to comments.

Hawaii Verifies Obama’s Birth For Arizona Secretary Of State
Talking Points Memo ^ | May 22, 2012 | Nick Martin

Posted on 05/22/2012 9:14:44 PM PDT by Beaten Valve

A Hawaii official announced late Tuesday that the state gave Arizona’s top elections official the verification he wanted showing President Barack Obama was indeed born there in 1961.

The announcement came just hours after Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett backed away from his threats to keep Obama off the November ballot and apologized for embarrassing his own state with a conspiracy theory-fueled investigation into whether the president was really a natural born U.S. citizen.

It also followed weeks of back and forth between Hawaii and Arizona, with Hawaii officials saying they weren’t sure Bennett was qualified to be investigating the matter.

Here’s the full statement Joshua Wisch, the special assistant to the Hawaii attorney general, released at 11:35 p.m. ET:

(Excerpt) Read more at livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Arizona; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: 2012; arizona; arizonabirthers; birthcertificate; birthers; certifigate; hawaii; indonesia; joearpaio; joshuawisch; kenbennett; kenya; naturalborncitizen; sheriffjoe; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-216 next last
To: butterdezillion

Yeah, I have a feeling the “proof” was a copy of the phony index record. The people of Arizona should demand the last series of emails - how the AG of Hawaii told him to modify his request, what the modification was, and the “proof” they sent him.


141 posted on 05/23/2012 9:48:13 AM PDT by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: TheCipher

Freedom of Information request on Arizona, not Hawaii


142 posted on 05/23/2012 9:51:53 AM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion
... And also demand of him ( if they didn't confirm it, which I doubt they did )why he didn't demand the verification that he originally asked for - the BC number, date of registration, etc. After all, their initial denials were not on what he was asking for, but on why he was asking for it. Since they answered him, he must have satisfied the why, so why cave in on the what? Is that the REAL reason they were denying it and the AG of Hawaii told him over the phone if he changed what he was asking for ( giving him a hint ) then they would reply ?
143 posted on 05/23/2012 9:56:49 AM PDT by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: I am Richard Brandon

Yes, that is what I meant ( the him was referring to Bennett )


144 posted on 05/23/2012 10:00:02 AM PDT by TheCipher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Yeppers! They changed the law to accommodate 0bama - back in 1949 - knowing that it would accommodate 0bama who was going to be born a dozen years later in 1961!

The power of this conspiracy is just breath taking!

145 posted on 05/23/2012 10:09:33 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: wideminded
I was already on it.
If you haven't already...see #129.

I'm no slouch.

146 posted on 05/23/2012 10:11:50 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
They changed the law to accommodate 0bama - back in 1949...
I never claimed the laws were changed to accommodate 0bama so I have no idea why you're reply was directed at me.
(well, I do have an idea why you've done so, but I won't go there today)

Please address your comments to Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America who made the following comment at @reply 100.
Hawaii changed their law to accommodate Obama.

147 posted on 05/23/2012 10:18:10 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: danamco
However, we thought we had Bill Clinton cornered w/impeachment, but he scatted...
He was impeached. He wasn't removed from office.
148 posted on 05/23/2012 10:20:18 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: null and void

BTTT!


149 posted on 05/23/2012 10:24:44 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

I replied to you because I thought you would get a laugh out of it.

Your idea why I replied to you is probably accurate.


150 posted on 05/23/2012 10:31:10 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I replied to you because I thought you would get a laugh out of it.
Your idea why I replied to you is probably accurate.

Your second sentence provides strong evidence that your first sentence was an outright lie.

151 posted on 05/23/2012 10:36:42 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Ok then - I have no idea why you think I replied to you then.

My reason was that most people spouting ignorance have no desire to be corrected by contrary facts - as I have directly experienced many times trying to point out that there was no “travel ban” on Americans visiting Pakistan in the 1980’s.

152 posted on 05/23/2012 10:41:06 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
Nah, he was probably in on it from the beginning you know.

George Soros connection in:

3...

2...

1...

153 posted on 05/23/2012 11:07:00 AM PDT by El Sordo (The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Non-certified abbreviated birth certificates are actually still supposed to be discloseable to anybody who asks for them. If you look at HRS 338-18(a) it restricts the HDOH from disclosing information from a vital record except as authorized by HRS 338-18 OR BY HDOH RULES DULY APPROVED.

Although those rules are supposed to be posted on the HDOH website at all times, Fukino hid them until about a year after the 2008 election. It took 3 months of haggling before the HDOH would even tell us WHAT RULES WERE IN EFFECT and then eventually post them as required by law.

One of the reasons I believe she hid them is because it says there that anybody can receive a non-certified copy of an abbreviated certificate (the abstract version, which is the only kind authorized in the rules to be by computer rather than photocopy or microfilm copy.

I’ve got stuff posted about this at my blog. Maybe I can go on my daughter’s computer and find a link. My computer freezes up anytime I go on my own blog. sigh.

The HI Ombudsman’s office - Alfred Itamura, to be exact, with the response cleared through Ombudsman Robyn Matsunaga (IIRC) - let me know that the HDOH was “not unreasonable” for saying they couldn’t disclose the non-certified abbreviated certs I requested, because the rules say those MAY be disclosed/issued rather than saying they SHALL be. But Itamura knows as well as me that UIPA says anything that CAN be disclosed MUST be disclosed. So basically the Ombudsman’s Office agreed that the HDOH CAN disclose those records to anybody who asks - contrary to what the HDOH routinely claims. And UIPA thus REQUIRES them to disclose it upon request.

I’ve got a link to the Administrative Rules on my blog, or you can get to it from the HDOH’s website if you know how to dig for it. Let me know if you’d like to see any of this and I’ll see if I can get to the links on my daughter’s computer.

BTW, those rules went into effect in 1976.


154 posted on 05/23/2012 11:07:22 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: SWAMPSNIPER

The verification that Hawaii sent Arizona can be found here:

http://www.azcentral.com/12news/Obama-Verification.pdf


155 posted on 05/23/2012 11:15:10 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Can't anybody (including the AP) call the office and get an "official" confirmation for print?

It's another Obama sekrit. Kabuki theater.

156 posted on 05/23/2012 11:30:08 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22

Well I spoke too soon about Kubuki theater.


157 posted on 05/23/2012 11:34:35 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"Well I spoke too soon about Kubuki theater."

LOL, maybe you meant "Party of Noh" Drama.
158 posted on 05/23/2012 11:37:40 AM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

They didn’t change the law; they just decided not to obey the one still in effect. They are refusing to let anybody even SEE either the original or a copy of an original birth certificate. Not even somebody expressly authorized to get a certified copy. That totally violates UIPA. According to UIPA anybody who is expressly authorized by law to have access to a record MUST be allowed to inspect it, which includes copying it. The HDOH refuses to allow either.

But just for birth certificates.They’ll allow certified copies of original death certificates. Something particular about birth certificates I guess...

At http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm is says:

Ҥ338-13 Certified copies. (a) Subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18, the department of health shall, upon request, furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.

(b) Copies of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original, subject to the requirements of sections 338-16, 338-17, and 338-18.

(c) Copies may be made by photography, dry copy reproduction, typing, computer printout or other process approved by the director of health. [L 1949, c 327, §17; RL 1955, §57-16; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-13; am L 1978, c 49, §1]”

Nowhere does that say that if an applicant requests a certified copy of a certificate the HDOH can instead give them the contents of the certificate. It says that UPON REQUEST the HDOH SHALL provide to the applicant (the person who is applying for a SPECIFIC record) certified copy, contents, or a part of the certificate. What was applied for is what must be issued, as long as the requirements in 338-16, 339-17, and 338-18 are met.

The copy that was requested can be made by one of several processes, if approved by the Director of Health. But the HDOH Administrative Rules - which are still in effect and which bind the Director of Health - specify that certified copies of standard birth certificates MUST be made by photocopy, microfilm, or typing. Computer abstract not allowed.

So what, exactly, is the HDOH afraid is going to happen if they let people see the original birth certificate of themselves or their close relatives? Why violate UIPA, HRS 338-13, and the HDOH Administrative Rules rather than allow the people the records are about to be in on the secret of what was reported about them?

Explain that to me.


159 posted on 05/23/2012 11:38:50 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: BigGuy22
LOL, maybe you meant "Party of Noh" Drama.

Here's to Drama! I'd like to see the origins of that Obama birf cert as would everyone else. This is the first time that Hawaii has been "confirmed" Obama's BC. Gee, "I hope it" stands up to future scrutiny since Hawaii has now crossed the Rubicon or is that Con?

160 posted on 05/23/2012 11:47:20 AM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-216 next last

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.

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