The Irony of His Birth

BRILLIANT.

If ONLY this would reach the loudest, most "intellectual" liberal pundits and wring a rational response from them, which would either be a tapdance in Cinderella-clear slippers or an angry barrage of evident lies.

Best sentence: The demand for his birth certificates is but a figure for all their fears and anxieties about the man who seems to want, not to govern, but to rule over them.

I think we were fooled before the election into thinking that when a party reviews its main candidates for nomination, they are put to the test for proof of the few requirements the Constitution requires.

Perhaps we need legislation that puts legal requirements duly ON the party who sponsors a candidate for President.

Another comment I have about this is that due to this President's extensive reach to change the foundations of this country and greatly increase the controls of the government over the people, all the moreso should he put forth all of his past records.

If we are a government BY the people, we have a right to know exactly who is removing our freedoms.

Maybe. Some demonstration that voters have at least a rudimentary understanding of our system would be nice as well.

“Did you read the post? All of it?”

I never comment on a posted article or response without reading all of it.

“Because the point being made is that the breaking out of the story into the MSM may be a precursor to some actual digging into the rest of Obama’s murky past on the part of the amazingly uncourious ususal suspects.”

Mr. d-o, I know you don’t believe that digging into Obama’s certainly murky past is worth making common cause with the sort who have encouraged mutiny in the ranks and thus endangering your son and his fellow marines. This is what happens when nonsense and lunacy is tolerated. Eventually it begins to hit at the military. The left has been doing it since you and I were young guys and since Viet Nam without much success. But now its the right and some in the military, not many, but some, will listen to the right and if that leads to what a number of Freepers have called for, namely mutiny in the ranks (which is precisely what those chiefs were concerned about), in order to advance their political agenda, then more and more of our service personnel will die and we will LOSE the war. Do you think that’s worth encouraging the media to look into Obama’s past? I don’t.

First of all, I have deliberately stayed away from the BC threads. I will accept your post as reflecting your opinion, since I have no way to evaluate.

Since you brought my son into this, I will share what I have tried to teach him about swearing an oath.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

We homeschooled him, so I am sure he understands that the first part of this oath is unconditional. The second half is not.

It is my considered opinion that the survival of our Republic may come down to a clear understanding of the differences in the two parts of the oath. If, in your eyes, that puts me on the kook fringe, so be it.

People born in territories of the United States are citizens of the United States....period.

Do they really believe that they can stonewall almost half the citizens of this country?! I know that Mr. Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and the rest of the elites are arrogant, but this is beyond that! German Chancellor Hitler, this early on in his reign, wouldn’t have had the nerve to try this!!

The reaction of many FReepers to the second statement of Doctor Fukino saying that the "vital records" show the birth of Barack Obama to be in Hawaii, is interesting.

You have written a good piece. However, we still want to see all the documentation that underlies Obama's birth certificate since Hawaiian laws made it very easy to obtain a birth certificate without being born in a hospital or seen by a doctor. For to issue a birth certificate, Hawaii stipulated only a witness was required to state the baby was born somewhere on Hawaii.

I do not think anyone expected Dr. Fukino would say that Hawaii could have issued the birth certificate under questionable circumstance. For this very reason we should demand full transparency.

I would like to thank all the posters on this thread for their gratifying comments. My guess is that it is typical of human nature to respond to those who differ rather than those who agree and so I am doing now. But to those who disagree with my take, I also express my thanks for the civility with which they expressed their disagreements.

Now on to the rebuttal:

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 would like to thank all the posters on this thread for their gratifying comments. My guess is that it is typical of human nature to respond to those who differ rather than those who agree and so I am doing now. But to those who disagree with my take, I also express my thanks for the civility with which they expressed their disagreements.

Now on to the rebuttal:

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.

Note bene.

The media whores should read your article. Perhaps they'd reassess their notions of 'slavery'.

If Obama was born in Hawaii, two years AFTER Hawaii became a state, why would he NOT be a citizen? I don't understand your statement.

It's probable also that everyone born in Hawaii, and was living there at the time it became a state, automatically became US citizens. I suspect something like that would be part of the Statehood process.

I don’t know if anyone is doubting the words of Dr. Fukino that the “vital records” say Obama was born in Hawaii, but the possibility of dubious documentation that supports her statement.

A minuscule fee for $12.50 may answer the question.

No. To conclude otherwise is to assume that the statements were carefully and purposely worded exactly in the manor that Fukino and some lawyer needed to state them.

Oct: That they have Obama’s original BC on file - neither confirming or denying any similarity to the info on the COLB.

July: That the totality of the “vital records” (plural) - whatever that comprises - indicate he is Hawaiian born. (The natural born stuff is strictly her reasonable conjecture). Also this neither confirmed or denied the info on the COLB.

So we agree that the original BC is part of the vital records. What we don’t agree on is that there are other vital records - be it adoption, request to register a non Hawaiian birth as Hawaiian, parental info clarifications, name chages, etc. The totality of the records reached a conclusion that he is legally “born” in Hawaii. And he might very well have actually been born there.

But the statements do not eliminate the possibility of what I stated above. Unlikely, perhaps. But certainly not impossible.

The nature of the lawyerly worded statements, however, raises the chances of this being the case.

As you said the first statement was wholly insufficient to put anything to rest other than that Hawaii had O’s original BC on file.

Here’s an interesting tidbit. Fukino’s office, responding to multiple inquiries months ago, adamantly stated that they cannot, by law, state what is in the vital records, and therefore could not comment on the info in the COLB, his BC or even confirm Obama was Hawaiian born.

Yet miraculously in July 09, she comes out saying the records confirm him to be hawaiian born and a NBC. Obama MUST have given her the green light to ‘release’ such information (I’m guessing his lawyers drafted the statement).

Since she is now apparently, legally freed to tell the world what is in the vital records, why didn’t she have a presser telling us what was actually on the birth certificate, perhaps reading it and waving it in front of the cameras like Chrissy Matthews thought he was doing.

Yet to this day, not one word of verification about:

a) The COLB Obama has being a legit, legally issued State of HI document

b) The COLB information being accurate

c) The city and hospital of birth

d) The attending doctor who signed it.

e) The other records in addition to the BC that comprise his “vital records”

f) What changes, if any, were made to the vital records after receiving the orignal BC

g) Who his mother and father are.

In conclusion, Obama deserves absolutely zero benefit of the doubt. He obviously gave permission (if not the words themselves) for the 2nd ‘tip toe through the minefields’ statement by Fukino. Yet chose to remain as elusive as he always has by not releasing the actual docs.

Thanks, don-o. Glad to get it.

“We homeschooled him, so I am sure he understands that the first part of this oath is unconditional. The second half is not.”

What part of the second half do you think is conditional?

“It is my considered opinion that the survival of our Republic may come down to a clear understanding of the differences in the two parts of the oath.”

I’m sure your son understands the penalty for mutiny in time of war. Mutineers deserve what they get, their co-conspirators and accessories the 20 years the USC provides for their crime. Arguing that the mutiny is justified by an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution is no defense either for the mutineers or their fellow travelers...and no court will believe that that argument is anything other than a pretense, a cover for political nihilism.

I don’t think your comment means you’re a kook. It does mean to me that you’ve lost whatever confidence you might have once had in the institutions of this country, that your confidence in this country depends on who the current occupant of the White House is. That’s a shame.

The territory he represents is among the South Pacific islands (can’t remember the exact name), but it is the one where Nancy Pelosi and her husband have their fish cannery.

That adoption by Lolo is crucial and credence is given to that fact by the divorce she obtained in 1980 from Lolo. When Barry graduated from High School he was Barry Soetoro. Less tha a year later his mothe robtained the divoce decree stating there were two legal children of/in the marriage, one over 18 needing educational funding. Barry entered Occidental college as Barry Soetoro. In so doing he—after reaching 18—abrogated American citizenship for identification as an Indonesian citizen. Now, when did he legally change his name to be able to perjure himself in IL claiming he used no other name but Barack Obama in his past?

Agreed. Or, have a positive vetting with concrete documentation by EVERY state before a candidate can participate in any primary.