[parsifal]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

I think I also heard it on CNN, but it’s been a while.

parsy

[deport]

August 1961
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		01	02	03	04	05
06	07	08	09	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

[Danae]

Think about this for a moment: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm "In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii's health director reiterated Monday afternoon that she has personally seen Obama's birth certificate in the Health Department's archives: "I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii 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....""
She says she has seen his records, and that he was born in Hawaii and is a "natural-born American Citizen". Parse that language. He was born in Hawaii. He was a "natural-born" American Citizen. That is different than saying a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States" Most people will discount a hyphenated word, but they are technically different, and Hawaii parses language like this a LOT. The constitution says:"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," There is no hyphenated word there, so technically Fukino can SAY what she said and be technically correct. Yes they will rely on such finely split hairs. Now what doe she NOT say? She does not say that the COLB on the internet matches the documents with the state. THAT is what we are discussing here. Hawaii won't verify anything at all regarding it, citing privacy rules that would only apply if NO information had ever been publicly released by Obama himself. You see, when a person releases something like a picture of a COLB then it isn't subject to privacy laws, its already been made public by the person in question. At the very least, Hawaii could state that yes, the information on that document is consistent with state records, in otherwise, acknowledge that its an authentic document. They can do that by releasing another identical copy, easy. If its already been done, there is nothing to protect. Unless of course, the documents do not match. In that case, then Hawaii is still bound by its laws and cannot release any information about it. See, thats where it all comes apart.