A couple of points:
1. My understanding is that under privacy laws, state officials are not allowed to disclose the contents of a birth certificate without permission to release the information.
This is why her previous statement only stated that an original birth certificate was on file.
So one would think it likely that Obama or his agents were in contact with Hawaii state employees prior to today’s statement to authorize Mr. Fukino to give out information on part of the substance of the birth certificate, namely, the place of birth. Apparently Obama did not authorize Hawaii to give out other information, such as the hospital or attending medical professionals.
If Obama is okay with Hawaii state employees giving out information as to the place of birth on his birth certificate, why doesn’t he simply authorize Hawaii to release the long form birth certificate (a printout of the scanned version, if needed) to the public?
Is it because the long form version states that he was born at home and not in a hospital?
A claimed home birth would not quell the doubters, and likely would give credibility to those alleging doubts about his Hawaiian birth.
2. Notwithstanding her statement that Obama was born in Hawaii according to her records, Ms. Fukino’s statement on “natural born citizen” is merely an opinion and no more authoritative or persuasive than the average Freeper’s opinion as to what the Supreme Court would rule “natural born citizen” means for purposes of the presidential eligibility clause.
Checkmate. Her statement just opened the barn door.
The Hawaiian law does not embrace selective release. It countenances either release of “the record” or not.
This pronouncement doesn’t wash.