But not foolish about the other points.
It was interesting to see on what point you hung most of your answer!
In any case your original Lingle quote was from 2008 and Fukimo, MD, did not release his statement until 2009. So she was not referring to that.
And even the 2009 Fukino's statement is less terse, but it's slightly greater verbosity is inscrutable and ambiguous. He says he has seen , "original vital records maintained on file" by Hawaii DOH. What are those? We do not know. They could be merely a statement noting a birth by a family member or related party, or something else -- who knows? He doesn't say notice from a hospital, nor even the word "certificate". What are the kinds of things that Hawaii DOH has file as "original viral records"? Do you know? I do not. Maybe Butterdezillion does!
But Fukino, MD, then makes a professional miscue, perhaps even a breach of professional ethics. What is that? Well, I know that I can't give people medical advice posing as a professional. But how can MD Fukino then give LEGAL advice when he asserts that Obama is a "natural-born citizen"? In context that's a unique term of art in Constitutional Law. On what professional basis has Md Fukino made such a bold statement of legal fact determination? On what authority?
If the original vital record is the mere word of a grandparent MD Fukino might have been able to justify -- to himself and cronies -- that by that alone he could make his assertion. In any case, as I understand Hawaiian records law, his statement created an opportunity to request an explanation of the basis for his bold claim of "natural-born citizen" status. What do you know of that?
