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

Skip to comments.

HI lawmakers vote to limit Obama document requests
Washington Post ^ | April 27, 2010 | N/A

Posted on 04/27/2010 9:43:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar

Hawaii legislators have passed a measure allowing a state agency to ignore repeated requests from a person or organization for President Barack Obama's birth certificate.

The measure approved Tuesday by the state Legislature would carve an exemption in the state's public records law and allow officials to ignore all kinds of duplicative requests, including those for Obama's birth certificate.

Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father and an American mother.

SNIP

The bill now goes to Gov. Linda Lingle.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government; US: Hawaii
KEYWORDS: article2section1; birthcertificate; certifigate; citizen; citizenship; congress; criminal; dunham; eligibility; fukino; hawaii; hi; hilegislature; honolulu; ineligible; lindalingle; lingle; military; naturalborn; naturalborncitizen; obama; palin; soetoro; teaparty; usurper

1 posted on 04/27/2010 9:43:36 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: STARWISE; LucyT; BIGLOOK; butterdezillion

.


2 posted on 04/27/2010 9:44:17 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING? She says she has seen them. Why can’t we?


3 posted on 04/27/2010 9:45:46 PM PDT by LiteKeeper ("It's the peoples' seat!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Gov. Lingle is a Republican. She can veto it.


4 posted on 04/27/2010 9:46:32 PM PDT by no dems (Palin / Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen.

I've certainly never seen such a statement. Has anyone else here seen it?

MM (in TX)

5 posted on 04/27/2010 9:47:14 PM PDT by MississippiMan (http://gogmagogblog.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Well that’s one way to get the issue to the USSC, it would seem.

Now there’s a case. First time a request is turned down under the new law.

Off it goes. Hope some smart conservative lawyer is drawing up the paperwork already.


6 posted on 04/27/2010 9:49:14 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (2012: Repeal it all... All of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan

The fact she said that means the documents are fair game under HI law. These people are so corrupt.


7 posted on 04/27/2010 9:49:15 PM PDT by Frantzie (McCain=Obama's friend. McCain & Graham = La Raza's favorite Senators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network; Nachum

Well put.


8 posted on 04/27/2010 9:50:33 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, ping


9 posted on 04/27/2010 9:53:31 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen.

Dr. Fukino has seen the vital records, so I guess they are okay. She is a Dr. after all.

10 posted on 04/27/2010 9:53:43 PM PDT by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Who cares we all know the truth....

Need to make a law that is mandatory in for all future contenders for the office of president have to show their birth certificate or they will not be able to run for president!

Starting 2012!


11 posted on 04/27/2010 9:54:56 PM PDT by restornu (My awareness is like the Lord added few more rungs to my spiritual ladder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Frantzie
The fact she said that means the documents are fair game under HI law. These people are so corrupt.

The only statement I've seen is that his file contains a birth document that they have seen. Despite the media's willingness to outright lie, I don't think there's ever been a statement that went beyond that non-statement.

MM (in TX)

12 posted on 04/27/2010 9:55:58 PM PDT by MississippiMan (http://gogmagogblog.wordpress.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

“Never-mind we had to pass a pseudo law confirming we are forthright and fair when dealing with legalities.”

“Just take our word for it that POTUS birth documents are in order and move along.”


13 posted on 04/27/2010 9:58:14 PM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: no dems

“Gov. Lingle is a Republican. She can veto it.”

She won’t. They’ve either got something big on her, or they scared her with a scenario of what would happen if the BC ever became public.


14 posted on 04/27/2010 9:59:29 PM PDT by Clock King (There's no way to fix D.C.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan

“The only statement I’ve seen is that his file contains a birth document that they have seen.”

They are just parsing words.
What she says could mean almost anything.

If Obambie was born in a hospital, the county would have a copy of the hospital issued birth certificate.
I do not think she has ever said that she saw THAT document.
Then again, Obambie could have been born under a tree.

I would like some confirmation on something I read that said
anyone could walk in off of the street and get a “certification” like the one Obama presented, and that it proved nothing.


15 posted on 04/27/2010 10:03:58 PM PDT by AlexW (Now in the Philippines . Happy not to be back in the USA for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father and an American mother.

I don't get into deep conversations with libs that claim Obama is both a natural born citizen and that he has shown his birth certificate. But when I do almost all of them initially disbelieve that Obama had dual nationality at birth and claim that his COLB is his birth certificate. As to the dual nationality, Obama admitted as such late in the campaign. As to the BC, I always mention that Hawaii officials stated repeatedly that they have "seen" the vital records which, needless to say, proves that the original records/certificate have not seen the light of day.

16 posted on 04/27/2010 10:10:19 PM PDT by torchthemummy ("About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people's lives." Ray LaHood)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan

Yes, she made that statement.

Then she was call to task to produce the proof backing up the statement as the law requires. They have been dancing on the head of the legal pin since then. They are trying to Opt Out.


17 posted on 04/27/2010 10:21:37 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Clock King
they scared her with a scenario of what would happen if the BC ever became public.

RACE RIOTS.

Every state needs one of these.......SB1024 presidential ballot; president; vice-president

Lately we have fairly busy with the Immigration Enforcement bill and it's attendant attack from the usual OPEN BORDER advocates.
18 posted on 04/27/2010 10:31:45 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barack Hussein 0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Call Lingle and ask her to veto, not sure if she is running again?


19 posted on 04/27/2010 10:37:46 PM PDT by Steelers6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Strange,no one knew him on their property including the property owners.Hmmmmm?


20 posted on 04/27/2010 10:53:15 PM PDT by taxtruth (Something really stinks In The Federal Government/Mafia and I think it's BO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Fossil; AlexW
Sometime ago I published two replies containing my take on the birth certificate issue has affected by the statements of the Hawaiian officials:

Let us examine the statements of Doctor Fukino, the Director of Health the State of Hawai'i, made with at least the tacit confirmation of the Registrar of Vital Statistics:

"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.

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...." (emphasis supplied)

The first statement avers two significant facts: 1) they have his birth certificate, and 2) the certificate they have is the "original." So whatever else they have in that file, they have his original birth certificate. So, if they have a birth certificate from Kenya, presumably it would not recite that he was born in Honolulu. If the original birth certificate recites that he was born in Honolulu, the certificate was not made in Kenya. Whatever comprises the "original vital records" (emphasis supplied) we know at least that it contains what these officials believed to be Obama's "original" birth certificate from whatever place derived.

Parenthetically, please note that if the original certificate was not from Kenya or some other country, it must have come from America, presumably Hawaii. Significantly, we know It is not possible that the "vital records" which were drawn upon to draft the Certification of Live Birth were comprised only of perjurious affidavits of Obama's mother or grandparents because we know they contained his "original birth certificate."

The doctor's second statement says that the "original vital records" which the doctor has "seen " verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. Significantly, she concludes that this means that he was a "natural born citizen." Finally she concludes by saying that she has nothing to add to this statement or to her original statement of October 31, 2008, thus tying the two statements together.

We have these commonalities of language use between the two statements:

1) the birth certificate is "original."

2) the vital records contained "original" documents

3) the doctor has "seen" the "original" birth certificate

4) the doctor has "seen" the "original" vital records.

The most reasonable rendering of these two statements is that the doctor has seen an original birth certificate which comprises the original vital records. Since the original vital records verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the original birth certificate also verifies that he was born in Hawaii. Since the birth certificate was original and the vital records is made up of original documents, the phrase "vital records" must include the birth certificate. If the birth certificate did not verify birth in Hawaii, and since it is an original document, then the vital records could not verify birth in Hawaii. Since the vital records verify birth in Hawaii, and since the vital records are comprised of original documents, and since the birth certificate is an original document, the birth certificate verifies birth in Hawaii.

Beyond the logic from parsing the words, a reasonable investigator would look at the import of the words: "verifying Barrack Hussein Obama ... is a natural-born American citizen" and conclude that no reasonable person would make that assertion if there was anything in the vital records which suggested birth elsewhere than in America. The issue is not whether Doctor Fukino who drew the conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen is competent to make that legal judgment, the point is that that conclusion expresses her state of mind. Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw. She said she saw an original birth certificate and she says the record she examined told her that he is a natural born citizen. There can be no doubt of her intended meaning. No honest person, lay or constitutional scholar, would publicly conclude natural born citizenship if she knew he were born abroad because the issue of foreign birth is precisely what the whole dispute is about. Besides, she had just said he was "born in Hawaii."

Under these circumstances, her statement that the records verify that Obama is a natural born citizen means she is climbing out on the limb publicly with no way back. Contrary to critics of her statement, she is leaving no room in the wording for Clintonesque distinctions. It means under any rational test that she is including the original birth certificate as part of the original vital records. It means that she will look foolish even venal, if the contrary is ultimately proved.

I recite all of this about her state of mind because the language of her statement has been used to discredit her credibility. The argument is she is parsing her words, that she should have been more explicit, that she should have provided more detail from the original birth certificate, if in fact there was one. There is a perfectly plausible and honorable explanation for her use of language. Doctor Fukino was aware that the law of Hawaii forbids her from revealing the contents of the vital records. The law of Hawaii does not prohibit her from expressing a conviction. Hence she was free to opine that he is a Natural Born Citizen because that does not disclose a fact protected by the privacy law but only a legal conclusion. She was free to recite that he was born in Hawaii because that was a fact already set out in the public record in the Certification of Live Birth. That also explains why she concluded her second statement by saying that is all she had to say. She did not want to open herself to a trespass of the law by engaging in a give-and-take. Not sinister, but quite sensible.

To conclude otherwise than above is to say that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, together with the Registrar of Vital Statistics of the state of Hawaii, are either incompetent at their jobs or they are lying. In order for these two officials to be lying one literally has to believe a conspiracy. One has to believe that these two officials were motivated enough to jeopardize their jobs, their careers, their reputations. At this point, we have abandoned reason for conspiracy and our Confederate dollars. It is a proposition I do not find to be defensible enough to challenge.

I have seen the article posted some time ago here on Free Republic: Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303258/posts) which makes it clear that his mother, or even his grandparents, could have secured a birth certificate merely on the filing of an affidavit or perhaps even only an application. Evidently, his mother could have presented a drivers license which she evidently had or even as little as a telephone bill to show proof of residency, simply averring that her son was born there in Hawaii, and she would have received a Hawaiian birth certificate. The article cited goes on to describe three other methods by which a fraudulent certificate for Barack Obama could have been obtained in 1961 in Hawaii.

More, the author continues to the effect that Stanley Ann Obama would have been motivated to do so because her son was not entitled to citizenship under the existing statute if he were born abroad with only one parent a citizen who had not lived five years after the age of 14 in America.

Therefore, it is possible that when Doctor Fukino examined the "vital records" she saw an application or affidavit that said that the baby was born in Hawaii and she saw the Birth Certificate that was issued as a result which would also show birth in Hawaii. She saw nothing indicating a foreign birth in the file and therefore she could quite properly say that the vital records show birth in Hawaii. Indeed, to say anything else would be to venture a fact which appeared nowhere in the record.

While I take issue with your well reasoned and articulate perspective on the motivations of Doctor Fukino-I come to exactly the opposite conclusions-I am compelled to agree that there is still plenty of room to maintain that, in the absence of the original birth certificate and supporting documents, if any, the matter remains open. That is not to say that the probabilities are for a foreign birth, merely that it is not illogical to maintain that a foreign birth is quite consistent with the facts as we know them, the Certification of Live Birth, the procedures and regulations in place in Hawaii in 1961, and two statements of Doctor Fukino.

I think we probably both can agree that we will find nothing in the file which shows foreign birth. We might also find nothing in the file apart from the Obama family's self serving declarations which show a domestic birth-and perhaps not even such declarations. That would leave the ball where it is but that is a defeat for us. We have the burden to move it across the goal line. Even if the original birth certificate were released and it was revealed that it was based on family affidavits, we lose. We need extrinsic evidence of foreign birth.


21 posted on 04/27/2010 11:12:33 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Well that’s one way to get the issue to the USSC, it would seem.

Now there’s a case. First time a request is turned down under the new law.

Off it goes. Hope some smart conservative lawyer is drawing up the paperwork already.


It is unconstitutional to pass a law at the benefit of just one person....its a Bill of Attainder.

This argument was used in the Terri Schiavo case....that laws passed were to “protect only her”

I am sure there are some lawyers out there ready to challenge this law. Hawaii would not pass this law if Obama was really US born....


22 posted on 04/27/2010 11:18:30 PM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (JD Hayworth for Senate ..... jdforsenate.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

What is her “definition” of natural born? He wasn’t “hatched”?
Her definition of “natural born” might say something.


23 posted on 04/27/2010 11:19:16 PM PDT by machogirl (First they came for my tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...." (emphasis supplied)

The statement "and is a natural-born American citizen" is an overstatement by Fukino. She is not a lawyer and I am convinced by study that only a child born with both parents being citizens of the U.S. qualifies him as a "Natural Born Citizen", regardless of where he was born. Admittedly BHO does not meet this qualification, unless there is a name other than Barrack H. Obama, Sr. on the birth certificate.

Past that admission, the question of where he really was born is still open. There is not a trace of evidence available to support that he was born in Haiwii.

24 posted on 04/27/2010 11:36:44 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Another possible option is that the birth record shows NO Father listed. In that case the question is how do you resolve “Natural Born Citizenship” when the father is “unknown”. Impossible unless someone offers proof of father’s identity.


25 posted on 04/27/2010 11:46:24 PM PDT by Texas Fossil (Government, even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

audit the fed..


26 posted on 04/28/2010 1:14:32 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

why? how about investigating banking activity by granny and stanly? how about investigating racial proviling to funnel money to minorities and unions.


27 posted on 04/28/2010 1:39:00 AM PDT by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
natural born citizen is not the same as a citizen. if it were why 'or a citizen' was removed on 7 Sept 1787.. On 4 sept 1787..the words were..natural born citizen or a citizen..were in the draft.. john jay wrote his letter to washington..stating a strong check and a natural born citizen..for CINC.. your valued comments are welcome.. great great grandfather..3rd Tn Cav..or (Lillards) McMinn County Photobucket Photobucket
28 posted on 04/28/2010 2:55:16 AM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Oh, it’s an AP article. Never mind. They’re not real reporters.


29 posted on 04/28/2010 4:21:10 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio
You have to love how subtly they did it in AZ. Give 'em the POTUS requirement bill then double whammy them with the immigration bill to get the other out of the news cycle.
Brilliant.
30 posted on 04/28/2010 4:25:11 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MississippiMan
-- I've certainly never seen such a statement. Has anyone else here seen it? --

July 27, 2009 Statement by State of Hawaii Health Director Chiyome Fukino

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
News Release
LINDA LINGLE
GOVERNOR
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D.
DIRECTOR
Phone: (808) 586-4410
Fax: (808) 586-4444
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009

09-063

STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.

"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai'i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago."


31 posted on 04/28/2010 4:33:56 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: UCFRoadWarrior
-- It is unconstitutional to pass a law at the benefit of just one person....its a Bill of Attainder. --

It's unconstitutional to pass a bill that singles out a person for CRIMINAL sanction. That is a Bill of Attainder.

Laws for the benefit of a single person (or a family) are fairly common. They are known as "private laws"

What is the difference between a public and private law?

IIRC, the issue with the Schiavo case was that Congress was telling the Courts how to do their job, or "to do" a job that they did not want to handle.

On that subject, I think Congress really missed a opportunity to rectify an underlying problem with the civil law system. Civil law is designed to make people whole with money - the stakes are usually not life and death. Given those stakes, the standard of proof is very loose, "more likely than not," also known as "preponderance of the evidence." Further, on appeal, the standard for reversal is very high - "clearly erroneous."

Congress has the power to set standards for civil litigation in federal courts, and it has the power to set standards for a finding, as well as standards for reversal - and it should have done so for cases where the eventual judgment is life and death.

Congress is corrupt, contemptible, and incompetent.

32 posted on 04/28/2010 4:52:36 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
The bill now goes to Gov. Linda Lingle.

We know what the Hawaiian legislature is composted of, but we will now find out whether Linda Lingle is composted of the same stuff.

33 posted on 04/28/2010 4:55:08 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

IF you want to boycott a state how about dim controlled HI, where unconstitutional acts are legal.


34 posted on 04/28/2010 5:01:06 AM PDT by mapmaker77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
"Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father and an American mother"

"Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen."

The first statement precludes the second!
35 posted on 04/28/2010 5:14:41 AM PDT by 762X51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
Hawaii Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino has issued two statements since 2008 saying she had seen vital records proving Obama is a natural-born American citizen. Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father and an American mother.

And what is her definition of "natural born" and where does she get it??? Certainly not from any authoritative source for 200 years of American history, but then again Hawaiians hate American history as much as the Left and Obama does.

36 posted on 04/28/2010 5:19:02 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
I fail to understand how a state legislature can constitutionally pass a law prohibiting the disclosure of public records of a specific person.

The U.S. Constitution requires all Americans be treated equally under the laws of the states.

37 posted on 04/28/2010 5:25:17 AM PDT by NoControllingLegalAuthority (As Wichita falls so falls Wichita Falls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

There are a couple of weaknesses in your analysis. First, Fukino did not say she saw the original birth certificate. She said in her statement that she saw that the state has it. This could have been done by checking index data or through a query on a database, but not necessarily by a physical inspection of the document.

In her second statement, when she says she saw vital records, there are disconnects between the verbiage in her first statement. Keep in mind that the COLB has prima facie value in a court of law. In other words, it is considered a self-authenticating document. No other record would be needed in order to verify the facts contained on that document. And the COLB, if legitimate, is an abstract of an original birth certificate. Again, Fukino is NOT saying she looked at the original birth certificate, but original vital records, which are not identified in the statement. The original birth certificate, like the COLB, would be self-authenticating. It should contain authenticating signatures and a state seal. If Fukino had to rely on any other vital records to allegedly verify a place of birth, then it had to be because the original birth certificate was insufficient by itself. If that’s the case, then it doesn’t have prima facie value and the COLB would have to be marked to indicate as such.

The other change in Fukino’s two statements was that in the first, she personally verified a fact in accordance with state policies and procedures. In the second, she saw unknown records kept on file (but not in accordance with policies and procedures) for which the documents verify the alleged fact, not the doctor herself. What we’re left with is unknown documents of unknown veracity. Without showing these documents, there’s no way to ascertain the reliability of such documents.

Third, there’s no such legal entity as a ‘natural-born American citizen.’ We are citizens of the United States, not America. Fourth, there are NO vital records maintained by the state of Hawaii that declare anyone to be a “natural-born American citizen.” Either Fukino expressed an unfounded opinion or she stated an outright lie.


38 posted on 04/28/2010 7:29:24 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Fukino did not say she saw the original birth certificate. She said in her statement that she saw that the state has it.

If one reads the two statements together it is impossible to believe (absent belief in a fraud which I discount) that she did not "see" the original birth certificate-unless one argues that such a birth certificate is not part of the "vital records."

The statement 2 she says that she has seen the vital records. In statement 1 she says that the original birth certificate is maintained as part of the vital records.

The question for me is, what is the provenance of the "original birth certificate" which I have no doubt shows birth in Hawaii and which I further do not doubt reposes among the "vital records." Is that original birth certificate the product of a fraudulent affidavit or application? If so, were the newspaper announcements based upon and generated by the creation of this "original birth certificate?"

I have no quarrel with your observations regarding her conclusion that Obama is a "natural born citizen" as they generally reprise my comments in my reply. When all of this is said and done it goes nowhere under this scenario absent extraneous proof of birth outside of the United States. That is quite a different subject from a definition of natural born citizen which excludes an individual who does not have two American citizens as parents.


39 posted on 04/28/2010 9:48:34 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

bump


40 posted on 04/28/2010 11:39:30 AM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or ...off..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

ping


41 posted on 04/28/2010 11:42:14 AM PDT by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or ...off..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
If one reads the two statements together it is impossible to believe (absent belief in a fraud which I discount) that she did not "see" the original birth certificate-unless one argues that such a birth certificate is not part of the "vital records."

Nonsense. She separates her two statements. She saw vital records that allegedly verify a place of birth. This doesn't presume that the vital record is the original birth certificate, because if it was, then she didn't need to mention any other vital records. The original birth certificate, if legit, should have been sufficient by itself to verify a place of birth. If it's not, then it means that Obama's alleged COLB is not legitimate. Plus she says she has nothing to add to this statement about the vital records OR her earlier statement that was only about the original birth certificate. IOW, it's an admission that her vital records statement was NOT about seeing the original birth certificate. Further, she said the original birth certificate was 'on record in accordance with state policies and procedures' but that the so-called vital records were 'maintained on file.' This means that these are not records held according to state policies and procedures. So the question is what records are they?? Affadavits?? Correspondence?? The DNC nomination form??Newspaper articles?? E-mails??

The question for me is, what is the provenance of the "original birth certificate" which I have no doubt shows birth in Hawaii and which I further do not doubt reposes among the "vital records." Is that original birth certificate the product of a fraudulent affidavit or application?

Not necessarily, but the alleged COLB probably so.

If so, were the newspaper announcements based upon and generated by the creation of this "original birth certificate?"

The newspaper announcements don't contain a child's name, file number, mother's name, place of birth, county of birth, time of birth, mother's race or father's race, so there are several details that it simply doesn't confirm. That leaves open the possibility that the original birth certificate contains information that doesn't match the information contained in Obama's alleged COLB.

I have no quarrel with your observations regarding her conclusion that Obama is a "natural born citizen" as they generally reprise my comments in my reply. When all of this is said and done it goes nowhere under this scenario absent extraneous proof of birth outside of the United States. That is quite a different subject from a definition of natural born citizen which excludes an individual who does not have two American citizens as parents.

The larger point is that Chiyome Fukino is a vital records adminstrator and not a Constitutional expert, lawyer or historian. She was under no compulsion to make a statement about Obama being natural born or not. Second, she has statutory and discretionary authority to do more than make vague statements. The DOH can release non-certified copies of birth records or release full index data, including the certificate number to confirm whether Obama's alleged COLB is authentic. She would be protected not only by her statutory authority, but by the Uniform Information Practices Act. There's no need to settle for less than full disclosure.

42 posted on 04/28/2010 12:10:51 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: edge919
She separates her two statements.

Actually she does not, in fact, she does quite the opposite:

I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

She saw vital records that allegedly verify a place of birth.

That is quite true, she says:

I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, ... have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai'i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai'i ...

This doesn't presume that the vital record is the original birth certificate, because if it was, then she didn't need to mention any other vital records.

This is true but not for the reason you suggest. It may have been merely a rhetorical path she took. Later we will see that she must be referring to the birth certificate which is "original."

The original birth certificate, if legit, should have been sufficient by itself to verify a place of birth. If it's not, then it means that Obama's alleged COLB is not legitimate.

Not true. If Obama were born at home in Hawaii the original birth certificate would have truthfully recited the venue of his birth to have been Hawaii. Such a birth certificate would have been "legit." You It was aare quite correct that if the original birth certificate is not "legit" the COLB is not legitimate but this tautology does not advance the state of our knowledge.

Plus she says she has nothing to add to this statement about the vital records OR her earlier statement that was only about the original birth certificate. IOW, it's an admission that her vital records statement was NOT about seeing the original birth certificate.

I've read these sentences several times and I confess I simply do not understand what you are saying. I do not understand what "iow" means. If you're trying to say that she's playing a word game and that she has seen nothing in the original birth certificate which recites the Place of birth, or that, she has not seen the original birth certificate but only the records reciting that there is an original certificate, that conclusion isn't supportable.

I say again, in the second statement she says she has examined the vital records. In the first statement she says that she has examined the records, further, she says that an original birth certificate is part of the records, finally, she says she has "seen" it.

More, in statement 1 she described herself as the person responsible for the "vital records," further she defines her role to "oversee and maintain" the vital records. She avers that Sen. Obama's original birth certificate is-where?-on record. How on record? In accordance with state policies and procedures obviously referring back to her job description which is to "oversee and maintain" the vital records. There can be no doubt, unless she's committing a fraud, that the intention is to incorporate an original birth certificate into the "vital records" which she has "seen."

This is confirmed by her second statement in which she says again that she has "seen" the "vital records" and his not the vital records only but the "original" vital records. What do these records do, these records which are original? They "verify" Obama was born in Hawaii.

She expressly connects, not disconnects, her two statements and there can be no reasonable inferences drawn except that the original birth certificate verifies that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that she has seen it as part of the vital records she is responsible to maintain.

She does not say that the balance of the "vital records" might be affidavits of the mother or grandmother reciting that Obama was born in a private dwelling in Hawaii upon which the original birth certificate would have been properly issued in the ordinary course of business. That does not mean that the affidavits are not perjurious. But the officer is operating under the statutes of the state of Hawaii which restrict what you can reveal. She has revealed nothing that is not in the colb.

This means that these are not records held according to state policies and procedures. So the question is what records are they?? Affadavits?? Correspondence?? The DNC nomination form??Newspaper articles?? E-mails??

That is what I just said, and what I said in my original reply to which you seem to take exception even though you're rehashing my observations.

The larger point is that Chiyome Fukino is a vital records adminstrator and not a Constitutional expert, lawyer or historian. She was under no compulsion to make a statement about Obama being natural born or not

Again, I don't know what the argument is about; you are roughly restating what I had in my original reply:

"The issue is not whether Doctor Fukino who drew the conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen is competent to make that legal judgment, the point is that that conclusion expresses her state of mind. Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw."

In sum, my original reply was not "nonsense," indeed, a fair reading of my original reply and your responses will show that we are roughly in agreement. Both of us allow for the possibility that, whatever documents are in the file, the effect if not the form could be fraudulent because a valid original birth certificate could be regularly issued upon fraudulent application or affidavit reciting, for example, that Obama was born at home. Further, the quoted statements could be perfectly truthful and consistent with the documentary records and show that Obama was born in Hawaii when he was not.

The problem for those of us who want to see the Constitution vindicated is that merely hypothecating a path by which all of the documents could be in conformity with the law of Hawaii, and the statements of the presiding officers, and the newspaper adverts, yet still be fraudulent in their provenance does not as a practical legal matter advance the case. Possibility is not proof. No court would dare unseat an active president based on hypotheticals. Equally, pointing out the obstinance of Obama in declining to release the "vital records" is not proof, it is merely suspicious. If the entire file were opened to the public and it showed that the original birth certificate was issued only on the affidavit of the mother or grandmother, without more, we lose.

Explicit extraneous proof of birth elsewhere must be adduced or game over.


43 posted on 04/28/2010 1:43:55 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Actually she does not, in fact, she does quite the opposite: "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."

You're making my argument for me. Thanks. If the original birth certificate proved the place of birth (remember, an original birth certificate would be prima facie, self-authenticating evidence), all she had to do was say so. She had no need to look at additional records ... and there shouldn't be any additional records. If there were, it would have been to amend the original birth certificate, thus the alleged COLB would have to include a statement that it was altered. His doesn't contain any such statements.

Not true. If Obama were born at home in Hawaii the original birth certificate would have truthfully recited the venue of his birth to have been Hawaii.

Born at home?? He claims he was born at the Kapiolani hospital.

I've read these sentences several times and I confess I simply do not understand what you are saying. I do not understand what "iow" means.

In other words

If you're trying to say that she's playing a word game and that she has seen nothing in the original birth certificate which recites the Place of birth, or that, she has not seen the original birth certificate but only the records reciting that there is an original certificate, that conclusion isn't supportable.

She's absolutely playing word games. It's why she talked about an original birth certificate in one statement and then changed it to 'original vital records' in the second. The crux is that for Obama's alleged COLB to be real, the original birth certificate would have to have the same information and verify the place of birth by itself. She has not stated in any direct language that she has examined the original birth certificate.

There can be no doubt, unless she's committing a fraud, that the intention is to incorporate an original birth certificate into the "vital records" which she has "seen."

Sorry, but this doesn't stand to reason. Remember that she said she had nothing to add to her original statement eight months ago. The original statement was about the original birth certificate. She is not adding to that statement by claiming that document verifies the place of birth. Otherwise, she would have started her second statement by saying that she was adding on to the original statement. She obviously can't make a direct statement that Obama's original birth certificate proves his place of birth.

She expressly connects, not disconnects, her two statements and there can be no reasonable inferences drawn except that the original birth certificate verifies that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that she has seen it as part of the vital records she is responsible to maintain.

She doesn't connect the two statements in any factual capacity and doesn't mention the second statement until the end of the new statement. If she was adding to the original statement, it should have been mentioned directly at the beginning of the second statement.

That is what I just said, and what I said in my original reply to which you seem to take exception even though you're rehashing my observations.

You miss the point. You were assuming the 'original vital records' were affadavits. We shouldn't have to assume and we shouldn't have to question. If Fukino has the statutory authority to say a record verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii, she has the same statutory authority to say what records verify this fact ... specifically if it's from the original birth certificate. She failed to do this.

"Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw."

This comment fails to stand to reason. Since there's no legal authority or legal document to state Obama is 'natural-born American citizen,' it is the equivalent of a lie because it is expressed as if it was contained in an original vital record. Since this is not the case, then her other claim about any vital record verifying a place of birth is not reliable. We know she lied about one thing, so there's no reason to assume she was truthful about the other.

If the entire file were opened to the public and it showed that the original birth certificate was issued only on the affidavit of the mother or grandmother, without more, we lose.

No, Obama loses. It becomes immediately clear that he lied about being born in two different hospitals .... oooops, one hospital (that story changed over time) and the claim of Hawaiian birth loses credibility. Either he was able to prove his location of birth or not, and if he can't do with reliable documentation, then he has committed fraud. That means he was ineligible all along and he has now committed an impeachable offense as well. Pick your poison for taking out the trash.

44 posted on 04/28/2010 2:43:40 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: edge919
I shouldn't be very much surprised to learn that Dr.Fukino defines her job as she has described it , to maintain the records and not to make life interesting or pleasant for conservatives like us. She is not motivated to advance the debate about whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, she is motivated to protect her job and reputation and especially to avoid being accused of breaking the privacy laws of Hawaii.

It is not persuasive to draw conclusions about what she should have said to put your mind at rest. She was very careful in what you said and it is in compliance as I understand it with her obligations to maintain the privacy of records.

To say that she had no need to look at additional records and this somehow proves a sinister motive on her part is frankly ridiculous. To say that there could not be any other material in the file is just silly. It could properly contain baptismal certificates, there could've been marriage certificates, immigration records of the father, passport or other documentary information of the mother. Heaven knows what might be in such a file that would be perfectly legitimate.

I don't really think that we're going to unseat a president who can't remember where he was born even though he was indisputably there, wherever there was. I think he might be forgiven for having gotten it wrong, or perhaps confusing what he was told in later life. This is hardly the level of proof which should preoccupy us or even occupy our time.

Sorry, but this doesn't stand to reason. Remember that she said she had nothing to add to her original statement eight months ago

Actually she said that she did not have anything "further" to add to her original statement eight months ago. By omitting the word you go along way toward altering the entire sense of her statement.

If Fukino has the statutory authority to say a record verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii, she has the same statutory authority to say what records verify this fact .

All she did was say what was in the colb. If you have other statutory authority to which you refer please cite it. My point is that she's free to tell us what's in the colb because of the public record. She is not in business to answer our musings. This comment fails to stand to reason. Since there's no legal authority or legal document to state Obama is 'natural-born American citizen,' it is the equivalent of a lie because it is expressed as if it was contained in an original vital record. Since this is not the case, then her other claim about any vital record verifying a place of birth is not reliable. We know she lied about one thing, so there's no reason to assume she was truthful about the other.

Come on. She's not a lawyer she assumes like 99% of the American people that you're born in America you are a natural born citizen. She says she saw his original birth certificate, contrary to what you say, which says he was born in Hawaii. It is not at all surprising that she takes that to mean that he was a natural born citizen.

Either he was able to prove his location of birth or not, and if he can't do with reliable documentation, then he has committed fraud. That means he was ineligible all along and he has now committed an impeachable offense as well.

Slow down. Obama did prove his eligibility and he proved to the satisfaction of the House of Representatives and the Senate pursuant to the Constitution. Along the way he proved it to the secretaries of our states. There is no constitutional requirement that the prove anything you demand, such as with "reliable documentation," to any judge or to any constitutionally designated body.

If he did commit such a fraud as you moot, he did it to become president but not while he was president. Are you going to impeach a president for peccadilloes committed before he was sworn in? Where does that end? First you have to decide who gets to determine the eligibility of the president. The Constitution speaks of this. I do not understand how you could presume to make rules about what is acceptable or not acceptable degrees of proof and impose that on the Congress of the United States. By what authority can you impose documentary requirements on secretaries of State who certify elections?

It is easy to let our indignation carry us away but I'm not sure it advances the case against the mountebank in the White House.


45 posted on 04/28/2010 3:32:03 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

obumpa


46 posted on 04/28/2010 8:04:51 PM PDT by Dajjal (Justice Robert Jackson was wrong -- the Constitution IS a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
I shouldn't be very much surprised to learn that Dr.Fukino defines her job as she has described it , to maintain the records and not to make life interesting or pleasant for conservatives like us. She is not motivated to advance the debate about whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, she is motivated to protect her job and reputation and especially to avoid being accused of breaking the privacy laws of Hawaii.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. How would full disclosure hurt her job and reputation?? If she doesn't want to advance the debate, then she shouldn't make public statements she can't support with documentation ... which would not break any privacy laws. She has the authority to release anything within the public interest.

To say that she had no need to look at additional records and this somehow proves a sinister motive on her part is frankly ridiculous.

Let's not go overboard with the drama. I never said she had a 'sinister motive.' I've merely explained why her statement is misleading and inconclusive ... and with intention to fool people, evidently like yourself. I think what she really wanted to do was stay out of this issue and let Obama answer for himself. Instead he left her and her department hanging out to dry.

To say that there could not be any other material in the file is just silly.

I didn't say there couldn't be. I said a legitimate COLB and the original birth certificate it would be based on are self-authenticating. The only reason to look at any other records is if the original birth certificate was lacking enough information to be accepted, which would result in a delayed or amended certificate. In that situation, the COLB is marked as delayed or amended, which Obama's alleged COLB lacks. If Fukino knows this, then she may be trying to avoid exposing Obama for fraud, which would explain her cryptic statements.

It could properly contain baptismal certificates, there could've been marriage certificates, immigration records of the father, passport or other documentary information of the mother. Heaven knows what might be in such a file that would be perfectly legitimate.

Are you even thinking this through?? You think Obama would have a baptismal certificate?? And a marriage certificate, immigration record or passport wouldn't be needed to confirm a hospital birth. You're making excuses where none are needed.

I don't really think that we're going to unseat a president who can't remember where he was born even though he was indisputably there, wherever there was. I think he might be forgiven for having gotten it wrong, or perhaps confusing what he was told in later life. This is hardly the level of proof which should preoccupy us or even occupy our time.

The candidate doesn't have to rely on faulty memory when he can simply present a legitimate, original birth certificate, which Hawaii claims they have. The problem is when this person knowingly lies and misrepresents himself with forged or illegally altered documents. Then we're talking about criminal fraud.

Actually she said that she did not have anything "further" to add to her original statement eight months ago. By omitting the word you go along way toward altering the entire sense of her statement.

Maybe if English isn't your first language ... but honestly this is reaching and desperate.

All she did was say what was in the colb. If you have other statutory authority to which you refer please cite it. My point is that she's free to tell us what's in the colb because of the public record. She is not in business to answer our musings.

Your argument is drifiting. First you said she has to maintain the privacy of records and now you're claiming she's free to tell us what's on the alleged COLB because it's in the public record. She's already claimed it's not public record. The spokesbabe at the HI DOH, Janice Okubo, has gone further and claimed they can't disclose ANY information from a COLB or original birth certificate. And ... she IS in the business of answering requests from the public for information. Part of the responsibility is how birth announcements get published in the newspaper. But assuming the alleged COLB IS in the public record, then the only statement Fukino needs to make is that she verified that all the information contained on the COLB is genuine and accurate. She has refused to do this despite direct requests.

Come on. She's not a lawyer she assumes like 99% of the American people that you're born in America you are a natural born citizen. She says she saw his original birth certificate, contrary to what you say, which says he was born in Hawaii.

Sorry, but these are two assumptions that are neither supported by the actual statement nor official documentation.

It is not at all surprising that she takes that to mean that he was a natural born citizen.

It may not be surprising, but it's not part of her job nor is it supported by documentation or a good understanding of what it means to be a natural born citizen. Better for her to have remained silent.

Slow down. Obama did prove his eligibility and he proved to the satisfaction of the House of Representatives and the Senate pursuant to the Constitution.

More assumption not based in fact.

There is no constitutional requirement that the prove anything you demand, such as with "reliable documentation," to any judge or to any constitutionally designated body.

No, but the Constitution gives the people the right and responsibility to petition the government for redress of grievances. Obama may not have had a requirement to present a COLB, but he did anyway and it has failed the smell test. Now it's time to get rid of the source of the stink.

If he did commit such a fraud as you moot, he did it to become president but not while he was president. Are you going to impeach a president for peccadilloes committed before he was sworn in? Where does that end?

Please tell me you don't seriously believe what you're posting. You think committing fraud to gain public office is a 'peccadillo'??

First you have to decide who gets to determine the eligibility of the president. The Constitution speaks of this. I do not understand how you could presume to make rules about what is acceptable or not acceptable degrees of proof and impose that on the Congress of the United States. By what authority can you impose documentary requirements on secretaries of State who certify elections?

They already have documentary requirements, except that they failed to fully verify the truth in Obama's case. Arizona is close to passing a bill that will make it easier to catch questionable candidates. Hopefully other states will follow their lead.

It is easy to let our indignation carry us away but I'm not sure it advances the case against the mountebank in the White House.

This issue isn't simply about 'indignation.' If you recall, the Senate (along with then Senator Obama) passed a resolution to declare John McCain to be eligible for president prior to the election. Was that motivated by indignation?? Was it in response to a peccadillo?? Was it consistent with your assumption that we shouldn't expect Congress to determine eligibility??

47 posted on 04/29/2010 7:22:19 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: edge919
Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. How would full disclosure hurt her job and reputation?? If she doesn't want to advance the debate, then she shouldn't make public statements she can't support with documentation ... which would not break any privacy laws. She has the authority to release anything within the public interest.

How would full disclosure hurt her job and reputation??

By getting her fired for violation of state privacy law which are generally known to prohibit the release of this information which is why we have not seen any of the underlying documents.

If she doesn't want to advance the debate, then she shouldn't make public statements she can't support with documentation

She didn't, her public statements are fully supported by the public document.

which would not break any privacy laws.

Rubbish. See above.

She has the authority to release anything within the public interest.

More rubbish. I've asked you before for statutory authority for your assertions along this line. You do not provide anything, you merely continue to reassert that which is manifestly untrue.

Let's not go overboard with the drama. I never said she had a 'sinister motive.' I've merely explained why her statement is misleading and inconclusive ... and with intention to fool people,

Let's see, she intends to fool people by misleading them, but this is not "sinister." I will let the reader judge your logic.

evidently like yourself.

I will let the reader judge you for this ad hominem. It comes under the heading of "cheap shot." Let the reader also recall that you are the one who started this cotntretemps and since its inception you have been wandering all over the lot, indulging in circular logic, finally resorting to the ad hominem.

Maybe if English isn't your first language ... but honestly this is reaching and desperate.

When you misquoted Dr. Fukino by omitting the word "further" you did so quite intentionally to advance your argument that there was no connection between her first and second public statements. It was convenient for your argument that there is no connection between vital records and original birth certificate. I can only conclude that your omission of the word "further" was deliberate and designed to mislead the reader. When the doctor said she had nothing "further" to add it indicates that she has already added something, thus connecting the two statements. When it was pointed out that you misquoted, you attempted to cover your declension by resort to a quasi-ad hominem, "maybe if English isn't your first language..." None of this does you credit.

Sorry, but these are two assumptions that are neither supported by the actual statement nor official documentation.

Of course they are confirmed by the COLB, which says he was born in Hawaii, and, ultimately, by an underlying birth certificate which she says confirms birth in Hawaii. Whether that underlying birth certificate is the fraudulent product of fraudulent affidavits is another matter. Not incidentally, use of the word "sorry" here and elsewhere is patronizing and offensive.

More assumption not based in fact.

Hardly. It is historic fact that his election was ratified by Congress as required by the Constitution. That statement is flagrantly false.

Please tell me you don't seriously believe what you're posting. You think committing fraud to gain public office is a 'peccadillo'??

In fact I said, "If he did commit such a fraud." After misquoting Dr. Fukino, you now play word games with my language. You may assume, as Ann Coulter said to Matt Lauer on the Today Show, "you can always assume that I believe what I write." Such patronizing does not advance your arguments with the reader although I have no doubt that provides you with some fleeting gratification.

Was it consistent with your assumption that we shouldn't expect Congress to determine eligibility??

There is absolutely nothing in any of my posts which would support such a conclusion that I think Congress should not fulfill its constitutional duty to determine eligibility. They did so in the case of Barack Obama but they did so in a faulty manner.

I regard my contribution to this thread to be closed although I fully expect you to make a full response if you choose. I note that you began this exchange by calling my post "nonsense" and I am content to let the reader judge our positions on the basis of what we have written.


48 posted on 05/01/2010 11:32:06 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
By getting her fired for violation of state privacy law which are generally known to prohibit the release of this information which is why we have not seen any of the underlying documents.

There's no privacy law that prohibits the release of the information. It prohibits the release of certified copies of vital records to people who don't have a tangible and direct interest. The information on the vital records is at the discretion of the direct of the health department ... stated clearly in HRS 338-18(d), "Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public."

She didn't, her public statements are fully supported by the public document.

There is no public document.

Let's see, she intends to fool people by misleading them, but this is not "sinister." I will let the reader judge your logic.

Any reader with a basic understanding of the word 'sinister' will have not trouble judging that misleading statements don't have to have sinister motivations. Good luck pushing the high drama angle.

I will let the reader judge you for this ad hominem. It comes under the heading of "cheap shot." Let the reader also recall that you are the one who started this cotntretemps and since its inception you have been wandering all over the lot, indulging in circular logic, finally resorting to the ad hominem.

You have put faith in Fukino's statements which I have proved are misleading and inaccurate. Your response to her statements is an excellent example of my point, so in this case, the shoe fits, and is an appropriate response to your comment. Second, you need to show where there's an circular logic. Tossing an allegation like that is cheap when you do nothing to support it.

When you misquoted Dr. Fukino by omitting the word "further" you did so quite intentionally to advance your argument that there was no connection between her first and second public statements. It was convenient for your argument that there is no connection between vital records and original birth certificate. I can only conclude that your omission of the word "further" was deliberate and designed to mislead the reader.

Sorry, but this is still a desperate stretch on semantics.I can do that too by noting that you ignored the word 'or' which means she kept the statement SEPARATE. If they were connected, then she would have said 'I have nothing further to add to this statement and my original statement ..."

When it was pointed out that you misquoted, you attempted to cover your declension by resort to a quasi-ad hominem, "maybe if English isn't your first language..." None of this does you credit.

Your accusation that I misquoted Fukino is simply wrong. And of course, you fail to acknowledge that such an accusation itself was what you call a 'quasi-ad hominem.'

Of course they are confirmed by the COLB, which says he was born in Hawaii, and, ultimately, by an underlying birth certificate which she says confirms birth in Hawaii.

This is factually wrong in at least two ways. Nothing has been confirmed by the alleged COLB because the COLB itself has never been confirmed. Fukino has never said an underlying birth certificate confirms birth in Hawaii. Funny that you bemoan about misquoting, yet have no qualms in doing the same.

Whether that underlying birth certificate is the fraudulent product of fraudulent affidavits is another matter. Not incidentally, use of the word "sorry" here and elsewhere is patronizing and offensive.

Only to someone who is overly sensitive.

Hardly. It is historic fact that his election was ratified by Congress as required by the Constitution. That statement is flagrantly false.

Wrong. You claimed he "proved his eligibility." Ratifying electoral votes doesn't indicate that anyone proved, examined, approved or acknowledged anything having to do with eligibility. Unless you can show that members of Congress looked at Obama's eligibility, then you stated an assumption.

In fact I said, "If he did commit such a fraud." After misquoting Dr. Fukino, you now play word games with my language.

There's no word game here (look who's using another ad hominem, by the way). I asked you a question based on YOUR word choice, which in the context, appeared to be purposely chosen so as to trivialize the allegation of fraud. So, the question remains, since you dodged it.

There is absolutely nothing in any of my posts which would support such a conclusion that I think Congress should not fulfill its constitutional duty to determine eligibility.

Yes, actually there was. First you suggested a proposition that shows no acknowledgment of Congress as having any Constitutional duty to determine eligbility.

"First you have to decide who gets to determine the eligibility of the president."

Then you followed with a statement expressing incredulity that such a responsibility would be place on Congress.

"I do not understand how you could presume to make rules about what is acceptable or not acceptable degrees of proof and impose that on the Congress of the United States."

Nothing here about Congress already doing this function or how such a function can be viewed by the public.

I regard my contribution to this thread to be closed although I fully expect you to make a full response if you choose. I note that you began this exchange by calling my post "nonsense" and I am content to let the reader judge our positions on the basis of what we have written.

You certainly failed to advance your assumptions, so it should be obvious now that your posts have indeed been nonsense.

49 posted on 05/03/2010 8:24:34 AM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

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