Replies

I would like to thank all the posters on this thread for their gratifying comments. My guess is that it is typical of human nature to respond to those who differ rather than those who agree and so I am doing now. But to those who disagree with my take, I also express my thanks for the civility with which they expressed their disagreements.

Now on to the rebuttal:

Let us examine the statements of Doctor Fukino, the Director of Health the State of Hawai'i, made with at least the tacit confirmation of the Registrar of Vital Statistics:

"Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai'i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai'i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

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 Barrack 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...." (emphasis supplied)

The first statement avers two significant facts: 1) they have his birth certificate, and 2) the certificate they have is the "original." So whatever else they have in that file, they have his original birth certificate. So, if they have a birth certificate from Kenya, presumably it would not recite that he was born in Honolulu. If the original birth certificate recites that he was born in Honolulu, the certificate was not made in Kenya. Whatever comprises the "original vital records" (emphasis supplied) we know at least that it contains what these officials believed to be Obama's "original" birth certificate from whatever place derived.

Parenthetically, please note that if the original certificate was not from Kenya or some other country, it must have come from America, presumably Hawaii. Significantly, we know It is not possible that the "vital records" which were drawn upon to draft the Certification of Live Birth were comprised only of perjurious affidavits of Obama's mother or grandparents because we know they contained his "original birth certificate."

The doctor's second statement says that the "original vital records" which the doctor has "seen " verify that Obama was born in Hawaii. Significantly, she concludes that this means that he was a "natural born citizen." Finally she concludes by saying that she has nothing to add to this statement or to her original statement of October 31, 2008, thus tying the two statements together.

We have these commonalities of language use between the two statements:

1) the birth certificate is "original."

2) the vital records contained "original" documents

3) the doctor has "seen" the "original" birth certificate

4) the doctor has "seen" the "original" vital records.

The most reasonable rendering of these two statements is that the doctor has seen an original birth certificate which comprises the original vital records. Since the original vital records verify that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, the original birth certificate also verifies that he was born in Hawaii. Since the birth certificate was original and the vital records is made up of original documents, the phrase "vital records" must include the birth certificate. If the birth certificate did not verify birth in Hawaii, and since it is an original document, then the vital records could not verify birth in Hawaii. Since the vital records verify birth in Hawaii, and since the vital records are comprised of original documents, and since the birth certificate is an original document, the birth certificate verifies birth in Hawaii.

Beyond the logic from parsing the words, a reasonable investigator would look at the import of the words: "verifying Barrack Hussein Obama ... is a natural-born American citizen" and conclude that no reasonable person would make that assertion if there was anything in the vital records which suggested birth elsewhere than in America. The issue is not whether Doctor Fukino who drew the conclusion that Obama is a natural born citizen is competent to make that legal judgment, the point is that that conclusion expresses her state of mind. Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw. She said she saw an original birth certificate and she says the record she examined told her that he is a natural born citizen. There can be no doubt of her intended meaning. No honest person, lay or constitutional scholar, would publicly conclude natural born citizenship if she knew he were born abroad because the issue of foreign birth is precisely what the whole dispute is about. Besides, she had just said he was "born in Hawaii."

Under these circumstances, her statement that the records verify that Obama is a natural born citizen means she is climbing out on the limb publicly with no way back. Contrary to critics of her statement, she is leaving no room in the wording for Clintonesque distinctions. It means under any rational test that she is including the original birth certificate as part of the original vital records. It means that she will look foolish even venal, if the contrary is ultimately proved.

I recite all of this about her state of mind because the language of her statement has been used to discredit her credibility. The argument is she is parsing her words, that she should have been more explicit, that she should have provided more detail from the original birth certificate, if in fact there was one. There is a perfectly plausible and honorable explanation for her use of language. Doctor Fukino was aware that the law of Hawaii forbids her from revealing the contents of the vital records. The law of Hawaii does not prohibit her from expressing a conviction. Hence she was free to opine that he is a Natural Born Citizen because that does not disclose a fact protected by the privacy law but only a legal conclusion. She was free to recite that he was born in Hawaii because that was a fact already set out in the public record in the Certification of Live Birth. That also explains why she concluded her second statement by saying that is all she had to say. She did not want to open herself to a trespass of the law by engaging in a give-and-take. Not sinister, but quite sensible.

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. One has to believe that these two officials were motivated enough to jeopardize their jobs, their careers, their reputations. At this point, we have abandoned reason for conspiracy and our Confederate dollars. It is a proposition I do not find to be defensible enough to challenge.

No. To conclude otherwise is to assume that the statements were carefully and purposely worded exactly in the manor that Fukino and some lawyer needed to state them.

Oct: That they have Obama’s original BC on file - neither confirming or denying any similarity to the info on the COLB.

July: That the totality of the “vital records” (plural) - whatever that comprises - indicate he is Hawaiian born. (The natural born stuff is strictly her reasonable conjecture). Also this neither confirmed or denied the info on the COLB.

So we agree that the original BC is part of the vital records. What we don’t agree on is that there are other vital records - be it adoption, request to register a non Hawaiian birth as Hawaiian, parental info clarifications, name chages, etc. The totality of the records reached a conclusion that he is legally “born” in Hawaii. And he might very well have actually been born there.

But the statements do not eliminate the possibility of what I stated above. Unlikely, perhaps. But certainly not impossible.

The nature of the lawyerly worded statements, however, raises the chances of this being the case.

As you said the first statement was wholly insufficient to put anything to rest other than that Hawaii had O’s original BC on file.

Here’s an interesting tidbit. Fukino’s office, responding to multiple inquiries months ago, adamantly stated that they cannot, by law, state what is in the vital records, and therefore could not comment on the info in the COLB, his BC or even confirm Obama was Hawaiian born.

Yet miraculously in July 09, she comes out saying the records confirm him to be hawaiian born and a NBC. Obama MUST have given her the green light to ‘release’ such information (I’m guessing his lawyers drafted the statement).

Since she is now apparently, legally freed to tell the world what is in the vital records, why didn’t she have a presser telling us what was actually on the birth certificate, perhaps reading it and waving it in front of the cameras like Chrissy Matthews thought he was doing.

Yet to this day, not one word of verification about:

a) The COLB Obama has being a legit, legally issued State of HI document

b) The COLB information being accurate

c) The city and hospital of birth

d) The attending doctor who signed it.

e) The other records in addition to the BC that comprise his “vital records”

f) What changes, if any, were made to the vital records after receiving the orignal BC

g) Who his mother and father are.

In conclusion, Obama deserves absolutely zero benefit of the doubt. He obviously gave permission (if not the words themselves) for the 2nd ‘tip toe through the minefields’ statement by Fukino. Yet chose to remain as elusive as he always has by not releasing the actual docs.

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.