HONOLULU — It’s now law in Hawaii that the state government can ignore repetitive requests for President Barack Obama‘s birth certificate.
Republican Gov. Linda Lingle signed into law Wednesday a bill allowing state government agencies not to respond to follow-up requests for information if they determine that the subsequent request is duplicative or substantially similar to a previous request.
The law is aimed at so-called “birthers,” who claim Obama is ineligible to be president. They contend the Democratic president was born outside the United States, and therefore doesn’t meet a constitutional requirement for being president.
Lingle didn’t elaborate on her reasons for signing the bill, but state Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino previously issued statements saying that she’s seen vital records that prove Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
Both Fukino and the state registrar of vital statistics have verified that the Health Department holds Obama’s original birth certificate.
Health Department officials supported the law because the state still gets between 10 and 20 e-mails seeking verification of Obama’s birth each week, most of them from outside Hawaii.
A few of those requesters file repeated inquiries seeking the same information, even after they’re told state law bars release of a certified birth certificate to anyone who does not have a tangible interest.
Advocates for openness in government oppose the law because they fear it could be used to ignore legitimate requests for information. The bill is SB2937.
original source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/obama-birth-certificate-l_n_574430.html
Here’s a bit of info for folks to ponder…that this poster shared
Im about to kill you birtherism right now. Even if Barack Obama was born in Kenya or another country do you know the law says he still would be a citizen because of his American mother. Don’t believe me here is the law:
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Funny how everyone who asks unpopular questions which oppose the status quo are now labeled… as if we are going back on our long held belief that there are no stupid questions, just stupid answers. Apparently, now there are some questions so unwanted, we can make laws to avoid them. I’ll be damned, God bless America, and its hijacked government who keeps us busy with distractions whilst they loot and fleece the populace.
Josh on the real..what would be the threshold for satisfaction? First it was they wanted to ssee a birthcertificate.. themn they wanted a long certificate, then they wanted some friend to see it..it never stops.. you have a GOP gov in hawaii she’s the watch dog..She signed the damn law.. How long before we all agree its enough..
LMAO!
It’s like unintended comedy with this “bertha” nonsense…
I think we may be barking up the wrong tree here. From what I’ve heard explained on this issue, Obama could have been born in the middle of the United States, say perhaps, IOWA, and it would not confer ‘Natural’ born citizenship, because his mother was only 18 years old at the time of birth, and that would make Obama’s citizenship go to his father, who was Kenyan. That would make Obama a citizen of Kenya. So why all the hub-bub about Hawaii?
D. Beard