If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
ASSOCIATED PRESS DISSEMINATES MISINFORMATION – AGAIN!
by Sharon Rondeau
(Apr. 24, 2011) — An article by the Associated Press published at The Drudge Report on April 23, 2011, states that “accessing some Obama birth info is easy” and repeats the false information that a “Certification of Live Birth” is “the only type of birth certificate the state issues.”
Just last week, reader and contributor Miki Booth had reported to The Post & Email that Hawaii State Senator Sam Slom “is well aware of the shenanigans going on at the Department of Health, and that he found out just today or yesterday that somebody received a long-form copy. He said that they’re just “messing around” and are being very selective.”
Slom has expressed his own questions about why Obama would “spend millions of dollars” hiding his school records, public service records, and his original birth certificate from the American people.
Last month, a requester had obtained a copy of her daughter’s original Certificate of Live Birth from the Hawaii Department of Health without incident. Reader and writer Miki Booth, whose husband and son were born in Hawaii, explained the differences between the “short-form” and “long-form” birth records to her U.S. senator here. As previously reported by The Post & Email, her son’s long-form birth certificate contains fields for such items as “the signature of the attending physician or midwife” and “Date received by local registrar.” It also contains the signatures of both parents, their birthplaces, and address.
The “basic information about his [Obama’s] birth” to which the writer of the AP article, Mark Niesse, refers, is called index data, which the Hawaii Department of Health describes as “name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize…”
Although it is true that Obama’s name appears in the 1960-64 Birth Index, what the AP article did not reveal is that there is something different about that book as compared to others scrutinized by a researcher who traveled to Hawaii last summer. A “duplicate” entry directly above Obama’s listing is unexplained, and the book lacks a date range which the other indexes contained.
Could that mean that the 1960-64 Birth Index was printed after Obama’s name was added to it, perhaps in 2007 or 2008? Why does the word “duplicate” appear in the line above his name but seemingly nowhere else?
It appears that the Hawaii Department of Health has shared personal information about requesters of information with Niesse which should not have been released.
Niesse contacted The Post & Email last August and we provided a brief response to his inquiry; however, he did not respond to our questions of him. In his article of April 23, 2011, he repeated the misinformation which Dr. Chiyome Fukino and one Joshua Wisch, spokesman for the Hawaii Attorney General’s office, released to MSNBC’s Michael Isikoff on April 11, 2011.
Last September, the Hawaii Department of Health lied when it reported to Niesse that birth index data was available in one-year increments rather than five-year increments. Two researchers who had sent money orders for the one year of index data were denied access to the information and reported the money orders they had sent returned. The Post & Email was also told that birth index data could be purchased only in the five-year format at a cost of more than $550.
Recently the Health Department has failed to answer any of our questions regarding Dr. Fukino’s new claim that copies of original birth certificates are no longer available, which is a violation of state law and appealable to the Office of Information Practices.
The Post & Email has appealed twice to the OIP: once after the Health Department had failed to provide a response to a UIPA request for birth index data, and a second time after the Hawaii Elections Office refused to produce the Certificates of Nomination we requested which ultimately showed that the Hawaii Democrat Party had changed the wording required by law when it declared the Obama/Biden nominations for 2008.
One requester reported submitting a UIPA request and waiting five months for a response.
How many laws have been broken to protect Obama’s past?
Another AP report accused Donald Trump, who over the last month has been vocal about some of the records which Obama has concealed from the public, of “perpetuating falsehoods about Obama’s citizenship and questionings the legitimacy of his presidency.” The report did not state what those falsehoods might be nor offer any supporting documentation or references.
An article from The Washington Post erroneously reported that “The charge that Obama has spent $2 million to keep this issue quiet is a relatively new one.” WorldNetDaily had stated 18 months ago that Obama had spent close to that figure to protect his birth records and other documents from being released to the public. The author of the Post article identified Politifact and Factcheck.org as his “colleagues” and described them as having produced “fine work.”
Tim Adams, a former Hawaii Elections Office senior elections clerk, has stated that there is no long-form birth certificate on file for Obama in Hawaii and on January 20, 2011 signed an affidavit affirming he had been told such by his supervisors. Adams’s contention directly contradicts Dr. Fukino and former Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle’s claims that Obama’s original birth record is held by the Hawaii Health Department.
Originally, Fukino had stated before the 2008 presidential election that she had “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.” Last May, Lingle claimed that she asked her “health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.” If Lingle and Fukino acted as they have claimed, they violated Hawaii state law, known as HRS 338, which prohibits the inspection of or release of information contained in birth records.
Lingle stated at the same time that Obama was born at Kapiolani Medical Center. However, the hospital has refused to confirm that, and other reports have stated that he was born at Queens Medical Center.
The current governor of Hawaii stated that he cannot find an original birth record for Obama in Hawaii. But did he really look, and if so, was he also breaking the law?
Mark Niesse stated that those doubting Obama’s birth story “suggest he was actually born in Kenya, his father’s home country, or Indonesia where he spent a few years of his childhood.” He fails to mention, however, that Obama’s wife described Kenya as her husband’s “home country,” and that MSNBC’s Chris Mathews, who reported a “thrill going up my leg” upon hearing Obama speak, had already made the claim that Obama had been born in Indonesia. Others have stated that Obama was born in both Kenya and Indonesia.
Why is there a question as to where the man occupying the Oval Office was born? Where do his allegiances lie?
Niesse also described Obama’s “long-form birth certificate” as “a confidential one-page document containing his original birth records kept on file in the first floor of the Department of Health.” But does that make sense? If the document is one page, how could it possibly contain his “original birth records?” And how does he know that such a record or records exist? Has he seen them?
When Dr. Fukino spoke to reporter Michael Isikoff, she reportedly described Obama’s records as “real.” Isikoff quoted her as saying that “She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.”
Why did Fukino have to “review the record a second time?” Wasn’t one breach of the law enough? And who was the doctor who “delivered Obama?” Where is he or she now? Why hasn’t that doctor claimed responsibility for delivering a baby who was elected President of the United States?
Isikoff had reported that “Obama, at the request of a campaign official, personally signed a Hawaii birth certificate request form downloaded on the Internet, according to a former campaign official who asked for anonymity.” But where is the request form? The Post & Email asked Factcheck.org, which published and vouched for the authenticity of the “Certification of Live Birth,” for a copy of the request form, and they never responded.
Dr. Ron Polland has stated that Obama’s alleged Certification of Live Birth “doesn’t exist” and that the online image is a forgery.
How did Isikoff know that a request form was completed and sent? He presented no evidence to substantiate his statements. Why didn’t he ask for a copy of the request form to embed in his article to back up Fukino’s story?
Fukino never said that the “original birth record” she allegedly inspected was issued by the state of Hawaii.
However, the disqualifying factor for Obama might not be his birthplace, but rather, his foreign father. That is one thing which the disingenuous mainstream media will not dare touch.