[edge919]

But a foreign birth is contrary to the express representations made by the Hawaiian officials in two separate press releases about the provenance of Obama's birth. We would then have to believe they are lying which is certainly possible but improbable.

These press releases contained parsed statements. There's nothing conclusive within them about Obama being born in Hawaii. The July 27, 2009 statement said:

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.”

Fukino's October 2008 statement said she had personally verified Obama's original birth certificate was on file. The July statement changes the verbiage to "vital records" (note that this is a plural form), so she's not necessarily talking about the provenance of the birth certificate. The "vital records" could be the Hawaii 50th anniversary of statehood declaration, or a letter from Obama requesting his birth records ... anything. If Obama's COLB was genuine, there should be no other vital records on file. So whatever documents these are, they call into question the authenticity of the COLB, and Fukino only says that these records "verify" (which can mean nothing more than "claim") Obama was born in Hawaii. Again, she switched the verbiage from her 2008 statement, and she went from saying she personally verified something to saying she saw some unspecified records that verify something.

Now, let's look at Loretta Fuddy's statement from April 2011.

"I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawai‘i."

Notice how she says "original records" and then the "certified copies" of something that were provided to the President, that "further" prove he was born in Hawaii. Well, nothing legal was ever shown by the state of Hawaii to prove he was born there in the first place, so how could an unspecified record prove anything further?? It's a meaningless statement. She doesn't say his original birth certificate proves he was born in Hawaii. Technically, there's no lie in either of these statements because there may be some "original records" that "verify" (claim) that Obama was born in Hawaii, but as written, these "original records" are not certified copies of an original birth certificate that lists a Hawaiian birth.

Also, let's consider that Obama did have a foreign birth, but under the Hawaiian territorial law, his parent could apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. There may be records that indicate the birth abroad, but other records that have the birth listed as occurring locally as fits within the law. Then it becomes clear as to why these statements from the directors of health use different terminology and purposely vague language.

[nathanbedford]

The "vital records" could be the Hawaii 50th anniversary of statehood declaration, or a letter from Obama requesting his birth records ... anything.

"Anything" except the State Department records which show that he was born in Kenya-which is my point.

How many people would have to be involved in a deception which can only be described as Clintonesque and maintain silence to this day? The people quoted by you, the governor who says he saw the records or whatever he says he saw,- there must be more.

It stretches credulity think we are going to convince anybody that these people are relying on this kind of verbiage in a conspiracy which is not unraveled to commit the greatest hoax in American history.

For the record, here is my post from a couple years ago to this effect and it seems the only area of disagreement we have is whether Dr. Fukimo could have truthfully uttered her statements if she had seen the document the present thread is discussing:

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.