Replies

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.

Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. How would full disclosure hurt her job and reputation?? If she doesn't want to advance the debate, then she shouldn't make public statements she can't support with documentation ... which would not break any privacy laws. She has the authority to release anything within the public interest.

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.

Let's not go overboard with the drama. I never said she had a 'sinister motive.' I've merely explained why her statement is misleading and inconclusive ... and with intention to fool people, evidently like yourself. I think what she really wanted to do was stay out of this issue and let Obama answer for himself. Instead he left her and her department hanging out to dry.

To say that there could not be any other material in the file is just silly.

I didn't say there couldn't be. I said a legitimate COLB and the original birth certificate it would be based on are self-authenticating. The only reason to look at any other records is if the original birth certificate was lacking enough information to be accepted, which would result in a delayed or amended certificate. In that situation, the COLB is marked as delayed or amended, which Obama's alleged COLB lacks. If Fukino knows this, then she may be trying to avoid exposing Obama for fraud, which would explain her cryptic statements.

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.

Are you even thinking this through?? You think Obama would have a baptismal certificate?? And a marriage certificate, immigration record or passport wouldn't be needed to confirm a hospital birth. You're making excuses where none are needed.

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.

The candidate doesn't have to rely on faulty memory when he can simply present a legitimate, original birth certificate, which Hawaii claims they have. The problem is when this person knowingly lies and misrepresents himself with forged or illegally altered documents. Then we're talking about criminal fraud.

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.

Maybe if English isn't your first language ... but honestly this is reaching and desperate.

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.

Your argument is drifiting. First you said she has to maintain the privacy of records and now you're claiming she's free to tell us what's on the alleged COLB because it's in the public record. She's already claimed it's not public record. The spokesbabe at the HI DOH, Janice Okubo, has gone further and claimed they can't disclose ANY information from a COLB or original birth certificate. And ... she IS in the business of answering requests from the public for information. Part of the responsibility is how birth announcements get published in the newspaper. But assuming the alleged COLB IS in the public record, then the only statement Fukino needs to make is that she verified that all the information contained on the COLB is genuine and accurate. She has refused to do this despite direct requests.

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.

Sorry, but these are two assumptions that are neither supported by the actual statement nor official documentation.

It is not at all surprising that she takes that to mean that he was a natural born citizen.

It may not be surprising, but it's not part of her job nor is it supported by documentation or a good understanding of what it means to be a natural born citizen. Better for her to have remained silent.

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.

More assumption not based in fact.

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.

No, but the Constitution gives the people the right and responsibility to petition the government for redress of grievances. Obama may not have had a requirement to present a COLB, but he did anyway and it has failed the smell test. Now it's time to get rid of the source of the stink.

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?

Please tell me you don't seriously believe what you're posting. You think committing fraud to gain public office is a 'peccadillo'??

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?

They already have documentary requirements, except that they failed to fully verify the truth in Obama's case. Arizona is close to passing a bill that will make it easier to catch questionable candidates. Hopefully other states will follow their lead.

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.

This issue isn't simply about 'indignation.' If you recall, the Senate (along with then Senator Obama) passed a resolution to declare John McCain to be eligible for president prior to the election. Was that motivated by indignation?? Was it in response to a peccadillo?? Was it consistent with your assumption that we shouldn't expect Congress to determine eligibility??