Posted on 03/25/2010 12:45:04 PM PDT by conservativesister
It wasn't a definitive statement. It was carefully worded to sound official without being official.
State law only requires them to release “Index data” on a vital record and that they have already released.
That's not what the law says. There's no restriction in the statute that they must have already released a vital record before releasing index data.
No, it's called probable cause, at least in other circumstances. The police don't have to *prove* you've committed a crime before getting a warrant to search your house, they only need probable cause.... and a willing judge.
As I said to Butterdezillion
Not in this climate and not in this particular case. It has to be ironclad.
Anywhere else it might be enough.
It wasn’t a definitive statement. It was carefully worded to sound official without being official.
That’s not what the law says. There’s no restriction in the statute that they must have already released a vital record before releasing index data.
Considering there's no legal entity as a 'natural born American citizen' nor a Hawaii vital record that makes such a declaration, it kind of undermines the credibility of the first claim, which itself remains undocumented.
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certifie
It says nothing about submission in advance, but rather indicates that the they must be "received" during the count proceedings.
The statement in question:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen.
The statement very carefully says the "vital record(s)" verify that his birth was in Hawaii. At least that is an easily provable statement, show the record(s). Although, it's not quite the same as saying "he was born in Hawaii", or the records "prove" he was born in Hawaii. However, "natural born citizen" is an opinion. "If she'd said "native born", while it would be redundant with "born in Hawaii", it would at least be a statement of fact, not opinion. But as a legal opinion, it's beyond her responsibility and authority.
Isn't that nice. Some animals being more equal than others is OK with you?
So much for the equality before the law.
It's not like anyone is saying throw him out on the evidence that currently exists. But surely it's enough to cause the Courts to look into the matter and to bring the actual information, not mere unsworn statements, into the public domain.
Considering there’s no legal entity as a ‘natural born American citizen’ nor a Hawaii vital record that makes such a declaration, it kind of undermines the credibility of the first claim, which itself remains undocumented.
The statement very carefully says the “vital record(s)” verify that his birth was in Hawaii. At least that is an easily provable statement, show the record(s). Although, it’s not quite the same as saying “he was born in Hawaii”, or the records “prove” he was born in Hawaii. However, “natural born citizen” is an opinion. “If she’d said “native born”, while it would be redundant with “born in Hawaii”, it would at least be a statement of fact, not opinion. But as a legal opinion, it’s beyond her responsibility and authority.
So Nebraska’s AG, for instance, could initiate an investigation of the crime of forgery which actually took place in Chicago, or the crime of perjury which actually took place when Pelosi signed a Certificate of Nomination in Denver, CO? Does there have to be a direct connection to Nebraska? Or would federal election fraud that affected Nebraska, for instance, be a legitimate subject for a Nebraska AG to investigate?
If I were to try to approach my AG, what should I keep in mind? What would be the best way to do it?
There have been a lot of requests for her to disclose any documents created or maintained by the state of Hawaii for informing the public which Fukino relied upon to make the statement. Hawaii law requires her to disclose those but she refuses.
It’s a lot like Obama; as long as the stolen chocolate remains hidden inside clenched fists and nobody can force the fist open to see what’s inside, the defiant child is presumed to be innocent under the law and nobody can charge them with anything.
The fact that they won’t obey their laws when confronted with them speaks volumes though. It’s routine behavior in Hawaii, in my experience. The ombudsman refuses to do anything about it. They’re just waiting for somebody to sue, but who wants to throw money into suing state officials after experiening the reality that EVERYBODY in that state’s government seems to be corrupt?
That’s basically where this is at. Just because nobody has challenged Fukino in a Hawaii court doesn’t mean her statement is accepted as legitimate or accurate. In fact, the attorney general’s office refused to confirm that they had approved Fukino’s statement as Okubo had said they had. The deputy AG said that answering that question would pose a conflict of interest for their office.
I need to correct something I said earlier. I wrongly said that the AG office was saying that Obama’s name on an index list proves he was born in Hawaii. It was actually the ombudsman’s office which said that - and when asked for clarification they said they never meant that the index only includes Hawaii-born people and that they wouldn’t be answering any more questions about it.
It would be nice to get some cooperation from the governor of Hawaii, and the courts, and the media, and.....
But that’s just not going happen as things are right now. It’s not a matter of some pigs being more equal than others, it is acceptance of reality. The reality is, as long as that POS is in the white house, we are not going to see any of this move an angstrom in the courts or elsewhere.
It doesn’t make it right...it just is the current reality.
We don’t have a president anymore. He is turning into a Fuhrer and last I looked they’re not that easily removed..
So was "Taxation without Representation" along with other abuses of King George and the British government.
Or interpreted it the way she wanted it to be interpreted.
Most people would say, I've seen his Original Birth Certificate, not "vital records" and they'd also say "It proves he was born in Hawaii."
But then most people would just release the danged thing and shut everyone up about it, but not Obama/Soetero or whatever his name is/was.
There can be no better recipe for a greater tyranny than we have ever known as Americans.
I have a background in law enforcement, let me explain a problem with your logic. It doesn’t matter what obama has said on the web or in person , or even if every American “knows” that his father was kenyan national. You must have court admissable documents as evidence. The only “evidence” useable in court would be a CERTIFIED COPY of his birth records. Most American know nothing about the Constitution and Artice 2 , and just assumed that obama was natural born citizen, without realizing that obama is at best a native born naturalized citizen. The Natural Born citizen clause has been in effect for over 200 years with no one questioning that it meant both parents must be U.S. citizens. The Supreme Court in the Minor vs Happensett case stated that children who’s parents were U.S. citizens were Natural Born citizens . There were at least a half dozen cases where a clear defination of Natural born was given in Supreme court cases. If obama disagreed with previous Supreme Court cases them he should have taken his case to the Supreme Court prior to running for the office of President. Congress will do nothing about this issue until some one , some how manages to secure a certified copy of obama’s birth records and force them to correct this injustice to the American people. So bottom line from a law enforcement point of view no evidence(birth certificate) no case.
Yes, to gullible faithers and people who have superficial understanding of the issue, the story you cited is a great example of how Fukino’s claims were intentionally misreported. The headline claims the birth certificate is real, when in fact, no such statement was ever made. The story includes the deliberate, partial and multiple use of a political label (’birthers’) to marginalize any disagreement. It then cites a political whitewash attempt by an Obama supporter (Abercrombie’s Hawaii resolution), as if that proves anything other than gullible faith. Meanwhile, Fukino’s statement stands as nothing more than vague doublespeak and an outright falsehood. What happened to our traditional adversarial fourth estate?? When did they become lapdogs and useful idiots??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.