Replies

You have to look at that statement carefully. She said that she had seen the records verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii.

“Verifying” simply means that an oath was made that the statement was true - not that the sworn statement is actually true.

The State of Hawaii will not vouch for the truth of those “verified” statements on Obama’s BC because his BC has been amended - a fact which calls the trustworthiness of the whole document into question.

That’s why AG Bennett would not - and did not - approve that statement by Fukino. Okubo made yet ANOTHER false statement to the public when she claimed that he had.

Just like she made a false statement to the public when she said that they were requesting a ruling from the AG on whether they have to provide a 1961 birth index. She said that to Mark Niesse of the AP but when I asked for the records whereby they asked for that ruling I was told there were no records for that.

Just like she made a false statement to the public when she said that revealing the certificate number would enable somebody to hack their computer system.

She’s got so many untrue public statements she should wear them like track medals on her chest - her contribution to uphold the usurper. I’m sure she has enough to have lettered and made the varsity team. lol

I have to disagree with you about that statement.

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

Fukino says the original records themselves verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. The word verify means "to prove to be true" or "to ascertain the correctness of." It's pretty clear to me what she meant.

Regarding Fukino's statement, Okubo said:

The statement was reviewed and approved by our Attorney General Mark Bennett. I am unable to provide further comment.

I also have to disagree that the AG "refused to corroborate" Fukino's statement. First, the Post & Email presented their questions to the Deputy AG, Jill Nagamine, and not to the AG, Mark Bennett. Second, they did not explicitly ask the AG's office to corroborate Fukino's statement. The P&E asked two, very specific, leading questions, neither of which said anything about corroborating a statement.

I am seeking some information in response to 2 questions I have. Please understand that your response or non-response will be quoted by our paper.
Q. 1: Does the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health have any statutory duty or authority to defin he citizenship status of anyone whose vital record(s) are kept by that department?
Q.2: According to the legal references employed by your office, what is the defition of a “natural-born citizen” of the United States of America?
I put my question to the Deputy Attorney General to avoid putting the Attorney General in a situation of a conflict of interest, if he in fact, did, as Dr. Fukino claims, advise her regarding her July statement.
Nagamine, in response, asserted that any answer to such questions given by her office would represent a conflict interest for her office.
And that is an explicit admission that Dr. Fukino had no statutory authority nor duty to make such a statement, and that the Attorney General’s office will not stand behind Fukino’s claim that Obama is a “natural-born American citizen."

The Post & Email is full of bunk. If they wanted a confirmation, they should have asked for one. The Deputy AG refused to answer those two specific questions. A conflict of interest does not necessarily indicate a disagreement. There may be legal reasons that she can't answer the questions. And since the original statement said Fukino had nothing futher to add, I wouldn't expect any further comment from the State of Hawaii. Whatever the reason, one cannot draw a conclusion that the AG's office refused to corroborate anything. What they refused to do was answer the reporters questions.

Maybe Okubo verbally asked (by phone) for a ruling. The law says they don't have to create records in order to respond to a request. So if the request was verbal or in a format from which they can't easily export data, such as Instant Messenger, Google Talk, or Skype, then the answer of "no records responsive to your request" is appropriate.

This example is what I mean when I say that you are speculating. You've jumped to a conclusion without concrete evidence or proof. I suspect you'll view this response as a defense of Okubo, but it isn't. She clearly hasn't been forthright in some of her responses. But that further makes my point that one cannot make definitive conclusions from her statements.