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.

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??

How would full disclosure hurt her job and reputation??

By getting her fired for violation of state privacy law which are generally known to prohibit the release of this information which is why we have not seen any of the underlying documents.

If she doesn't want to advance the debate, then she shouldn't make public statements she can't support with documentation

She didn't, her public statements are fully supported by the public document.

which would not break any privacy laws.

Rubbish. See above.

She has the authority to release anything within the public interest.

More rubbish. I've asked you before for statutory authority for your assertions along this line. You do not provide anything, you merely continue to reassert that which is manifestly untrue.

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,

Let's see, she intends to fool people by misleading them, but this is not "sinister." I will let the reader judge your logic.

evidently like yourself.

I will let the reader judge you for this ad hominem. It comes under the heading of "cheap shot." Let the reader also recall that you are the one who started this cotntretemps and since its inception you have been wandering all over the lot, indulging in circular logic, finally resorting to the ad hominem.

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

When you misquoted Dr. Fukino by omitting the word "further" you did so quite intentionally to advance your argument that there was no connection between her first and second public statements. It was convenient for your argument that there is no connection between vital records and original birth certificate. I can only conclude that your omission of the word "further" was deliberate and designed to mislead the reader. When the doctor said she had nothing "further" to add it indicates that she has already added something, thus connecting the two statements. When it was pointed out that you misquoted, you attempted to cover your declension by resort to a quasi-ad hominem, "maybe if English isn't your first language..." None of this does you credit.

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

Of course they are confirmed by the COLB, which says he was born in Hawaii, and, ultimately, by an underlying birth certificate which she says confirms birth in Hawaii. Whether that underlying birth certificate is the fraudulent product of fraudulent affidavits is another matter. Not incidentally, use of the word "sorry" here and elsewhere is patronizing and offensive.

More assumption not based in fact.

Hardly. It is historic fact that his election was ratified by Congress as required by the Constitution. That statement is flagrantly false.

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

In fact I said, "If he did commit such a fraud." After misquoting Dr. Fukino, you now play word games with my language. You may assume, as Ann Coulter said to Matt Lauer on the Today Show, "you can always assume that I believe what I write." Such patronizing does not advance your arguments with the reader although I have no doubt that provides you with some fleeting gratification.

Was it consistent with your assumption that we shouldn't expect Congress to determine eligibility??

There is absolutely nothing in any of my posts which would support such a conclusion that I think Congress should not fulfill its constitutional duty to determine eligibility. They did so in the case of Barack Obama but they did so in a faulty manner.

I regard my contribution to this thread to be closed although I fully expect you to make a full response if you choose. I note that you began this exchange by calling my post "nonsense" and I am content to let the reader judge our positions on the basis of what we have written.