Actually she does not, in fact, she does quite the opposite: "I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...." You're making my argument for me. Thanks. If the original birth certificate proved the place of birth (remember, an original birth certificate would be prima facie, self-authenticating evidence), all she had to do was say so. She had no need to look at additional records ... and there shouldn't be any additional records. If there were, it would have been to amend the original birth certificate, thus the alleged COLB would have to include a statement that it was altered. His doesn't contain any such statements.
Not true. If Obama were born at home in Hawaii the original birth certificate would have truthfully recited the venue of his birth to have been Hawaii.
Born at home?? He claims he was born at the Kapiolani hospital.
I've read these sentences several times and I confess I simply do not understand what you are saying. I do not understand what "iow" means.
In other words
If you're trying to say that she's playing a word game and that she has seen nothing in the original birth certificate which recites the Place of birth, or that, she has not seen the original birth certificate but only the records reciting that there is an original certificate, that conclusion isn't supportable.
She's absolutely playing word games. It's why she talked about an original birth certificate in one statement and then changed it to 'original vital records' in the second. The crux is that for Obama's alleged COLB to be real, the original birth certificate would have to have the same information and verify the place of birth by itself. She has not stated in any direct language that she has examined the original birth certificate.
There can be no doubt, unless she's committing a fraud, that the intention is to incorporate an original birth certificate into the "vital records" which she has "seen."
Sorry, but this doesn't stand to reason. Remember that she said she had nothing to add to her original statement eight months ago. The original statement was about the original birth certificate. She is not adding to that statement by claiming that document verifies the place of birth. Otherwise, she would have started her second statement by saying that she was adding on to the original statement. She obviously can't make a direct statement that Obama's original birth certificate proves his place of birth.
She expressly connects, not disconnects, her two statements and there can be no reasonable inferences drawn except that the original birth certificate verifies that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and that she has seen it as part of the vital records she is responsible to maintain.
She doesn't connect the two statements in any factual capacity and doesn't mention the second statement until the end of the new statement. If she was adding to the original statement, it should have been mentioned directly at the beginning of the second statement.
That is what I just said, and what I said in my original reply to which you seem to take exception even though you're rehashing my observations.
You miss the point. You were assuming the 'original vital records' were affadavits. We shouldn't have to assume and we shouldn't have to question. If Fukino has the statutory authority to say a record verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii, she has the same statutory authority to say what records verify this fact ... specifically if it's from the original birth certificate. She failed to do this.
"Whether she is competent to make such a legal judgment has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of what she says she saw."
This comment fails to stand to reason. Since there's no legal authority or legal document to state Obama is 'natural-born American citizen,' it is the equivalent of a lie because it is expressed as if it was contained in an original vital record. Since this is not the case, then her other claim about any vital record verifying a place of birth is not reliable. We know she lied about one thing, so there's no reason to assume she was truthful about the other.
If the entire file were opened to the public and it showed that the original birth certificate was issued only on the affidavit of the mother or grandmother, without more, we lose.
No, Obama loses. It becomes immediately clear that he lied about being born in two different hospitals .... oooops, one hospital (that story changed over time) and the claim of Hawaiian birth loses credibility. Either he was able to prove his location of birth or not, and if he can't do with reliable documentation, then he has committed fraud. That means he was ineligible all along and he has now committed an impeachable offense as well. Pick your poison for taking out the trash.
I shouldn't be very much surprised to learn that Dr.Fukino defines her job as she has described it , to maintain the records and not to make life interesting or pleasant for conservatives like us. She is not motivated to advance the debate about whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen, she is motivated to protect her job and reputation and especially to avoid being accused of breaking the privacy laws of Hawaii.
It is not persuasive to draw conclusions about what she should have said to put your mind at rest. She was very careful in what you said and it is in compliance as I understand it with her obligations to maintain the privacy of records.
To say that she had no need to look at additional records and this somehow proves a sinister motive on her part is frankly ridiculous. To say that there could not be any other material in the file is just silly. It could properly contain baptismal certificates, there could've been marriage certificates, immigration records of the father, passport or other documentary information of the mother. Heaven knows what might be in such a file that would be perfectly legitimate.
I don't really think that we're going to unseat a president who can't remember where he was born even though he was indisputably there, wherever there was. I think he might be forgiven for having gotten it wrong, or perhaps confusing what he was told in later life. This is hardly the level of proof which should preoccupy us or even occupy our time.
Sorry, but this doesn't stand to reason. Remember that she said she had nothing to add to her original statement eight months ago
Actually she said that she did not have anything "further" to add to her original statement eight months ago. By omitting the word you go along way toward altering the entire sense of her statement.
If Fukino has the statutory authority to say a record verifies that Obama was born in Hawaii, she has the same statutory authority to say what records verify this fact .
All she did was say what was in the colb. If you have other statutory authority to which you refer please cite it. My point is that she's free to tell us what's in the colb because of the public record. She is not in business to answer our musings. This comment fails to stand to reason. Since there's no legal authority or legal document to state Obama is 'natural-born American citizen,' it is the equivalent of a lie because it is expressed as if it was contained in an original vital record. Since this is not the case, then her other claim about any vital record verifying a place of birth is not reliable. We know she lied about one thing, so there's no reason to assume she was truthful about the other.
Come on. She's not a lawyer she assumes like 99% of the American people that you're born in America you are a natural born citizen. She says she saw his original birth certificate, contrary to what you say, which says he was born in Hawaii. It is not at all surprising that she takes that to mean that he was a natural born citizen.
Either he was able to prove his location of birth or not, and if he can't do with reliable documentation, then he has committed fraud. That means he was ineligible all along and he has now committed an impeachable offense as well.
Slow down. Obama did prove his eligibility and he proved to the satisfaction of the House of Representatives and the Senate pursuant to the Constitution. Along the way he proved it to the secretaries of our states. There is no constitutional requirement that the prove anything you demand, such as with "reliable documentation," to any judge or to any constitutionally designated body.
If he did commit such a fraud as you moot, he did it to become president but not while he was president. Are you going to impeach a president for peccadilloes committed before he was sworn in? Where does that end? First you have to decide who gets to determine the eligibility of the president. The Constitution speaks of this. I do not understand how you could presume to make rules about what is acceptable or not acceptable degrees of proof and impose that on the Congress of the United States. By what authority can you impose documentary requirements on secretaries of State who certify elections?
It is easy to let our indignation carry us away but I'm not sure it advances the case against the mountebank in the White House.
