Again, a very well written piece, but again, I don’t agree with a critical point in your logic. My piece may not be so well written (it’s 5am, I just got off 12 hours of work, and I’m tired), but I think my logic is better.
1) They have the original birth certificate. Fine, I accept that. 2) There is no Kenyan birth certificate. Fine, I accept that. 3) The Certification of Live Birth was not based on an affidavit. Fine, I accept that. 4) Fukino has seen the original Birth Certificate. Fine, I accept that.
At this point, you seem to conclude that there is no other document in the “vital records”. This is where you and I part company. If the Certification of Live Birth can be based on the Birth Certificate, why cannot the Birth Certificate be based on the Affidavit? You have still given me absolutely NO REASON to believe that the Birth Certificate is the SOLE document contained in the vital records. By the way, please note that she said “vital records” (that a plural). She did not say “vital record” (a singular). The most “reasonable rendering” of her statement is that there is more than one document in the package. Since we both agree that this “other document” cannot be a Kenyan birth certificate, the only other “reasonable” conclusion is that the other document is an affidavit (which would also be considered a “vital record”).
The only thing that all of this says is that she has seen the “original vital records” verifying that Obama was born in America, and is thus a “natural born citizen”. As we discussed the other day, “verification” can consist of an affidavit signed by mommy or grandmommy.
Parenthetically, she is not qualified to decide his current legal status based solely on his American birth, but that’s neither here nor there. As far as her “climbing out on a limb”, that’s a very flowery statement, to which I can only reply: “please” (as in “spare me”). If her statement was based on seeing a long form signed by a doctor and a nurse, her statement would be true. If her statement was based on seeing an affidavit signed by mommy and/or grandmommy, which is legally sufficient “verification”, her statement would still be true. She has still NOT told us which is the case. She has still NOT told us what those “vital records” (plural) consist of. She has still NOT told us ANYTHING. I don’t doubt that everything she has said is true (to the best of her knowledge). I also don’t doubt that all of her statements were constrained by her legal obligations. I also don’t doubt that she, and the state lawyer who no doubt consulted with her, are trying to cover their own asses.
The point of this whole exercise is not whether Obama is legally a citizen based on the documentation on file. The point of the exercise is whether on not there is an affidavit on file as part of the “vital records” (plural) and whether or not that affidavit is fraudulent. If there is NO affidavit and he was born in Hawaii, then there would be independent hospital records (which there are not), and Obama would have released his original long-form (which he has not). If there IS an affidavit on file, and it is NOT fraudulent (which probably cannot be “proven” either way), then Obama lied about his being born in a hospital. If that’s the case, then there is going to be whole shit-storm coming down. Remember, the last two presidents that were impeached were booted out not because of the original crime, but because of the cover-up. If the affidavit IS on file and it IS fraudulent, then Obama will be on the hook for a cover-up, and on the hook (possibly) for as not being natural born.
“To conclude otherwise than above is to say that the Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, together with the Registrar of Vital Statistics of the state of Hawaii, are either incompetent at their jobs or they are lying. In order for these two officials to be lying one literally has to believe a conspiracy.” Excuse me, but other than trying to work the word “conspiracy” into your prose, what the hell are you talking about? I agree that they have seen the documents (plural), and that the documents legally state that Obama was born in Hawaii. Again, this would be true whether there was an affidavit or not, whether the affidavit was true or not.
If it is discovered that Obama’s citizenship was based simply on the word of his mommy and/or grandmommy, particularly in light of the preponderance of conflicting circumstances and the fact that his sister-in-law also has a similar document, there will be a storm of outrage and investigation, regardless of whether or not it was legal under the laws at the time. That’s the ONLY thing that I read out of all of these statements. Other than that, the only thing they say is that there may or may not be an underlying affidavit. This has nothing to do with whether or not Fukino is telling the truth. As I said, I have no doubt that she is, just as I have no doubt that she is telling us nothing. I think the primary purpose of her statement is to try to calm the coming storm by throwing something to the media, so that they can claim that the matter has been “settled”. Or in simple terms, CYOA.
Brace yourselves: I agree with you!
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 averred 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.
