The author of this article is ignorant of the matter and reaches conclusions by way of a faulty process. There is a plausible, repeat, plausible, but unlikely scenario by which all the documents and all of the statements made by the officials of Hawaii after examination of the documents could be consistent with a birth outside of the United States without any conspiracy having taken place. That includes the birth notices in the newspaper. If the birth was outside of the United States under the statutes cited in the reply to follow, it seems perfectly apparent that Obama was not a "natural born citizen" because he was not, in fact, a citizen of the United States at all at the time of his birth if it occurred out of the country.
The problem is that just because there is a plausible scenario by which Obama could have been recorded in Hawaii as being born there when he in fact was not born there, does not mean that that happened. Indeed, there is absolutely no extrinsic evidence (I am discarding the radio interview the grandmother as being recanted) that he was born anywhere other than in Hawaii. The fact that Obama has taken such pains to avoid producing an original longform birth certificate is not necessarily evidence that he was born outside of America. It alone is insufficient proof.
Any officer of the state of Hawaii examining the file would conclude that the longform birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii and there is no evidence to the contrary. Hence the two public announcements of the Hawaiian officials are plausibly consistent with a fraud which might have been committed by the mother or the grandparents but which is not the product of a conspiracy. Either the mother or one of the grandparents could have made a simple application to Hawaii registrar and secured a birth certificate with no documentary evidence other than an affidavit of birth at home and some sort of evidence, such as a drivers license which was held by Ann Dunham Obama, of residence in the state.
Here is a reply along those lines from some time ago:
I have seen the article posted some time ago here on Free Republic: Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2303258/posts) which makes it clear that his mother, or even his grandparents, could have secured a birth certificate merely on the filing of an affidavit or perhaps even only an application. Evidently, his mother could have presented a drivers license which she evidently had or even as little as a telephone bill to show proof of residency, simply averring that her son was born there in Hawaii, and she would have received a Hawaiian birth certificate. The article cited goes on to describe three other methods by which a fraudulent certificate for Barack Obama could have been obtained in 1961 in Hawaii.
More, the author continues to the effect that Stanley Ann Obama would have been motivated to do so because her son was not entitled to citizenship under the existing statute if he were born abroad with only one parent a citizen who had not lived five years after the age of 14 in America.
Therefore, it is possible that when Doctor Fukino examined the "vital records" she saw an application or affidavit that said that the baby was born in Hawaii and she saw the Birth Certificate that was issued as a result which would also show birth in Hawaii. She saw nothing indicating a foreign birth in the file and therefore she could quite properly say that the vital records show birth in Hawaii. Indeed, to say anything else would be to venture a fact which appeared nowhere in the record.
While I take issue with your well reasoned and articulate perspective on the motivations of Doctor Fukino-I come to exactly the opposite conclusions-I am compelled to agree that there is still plenty of room to maintain that, in the absence of the original birth certificate and supporting documents, if any, the matter remains open. That is not to say that the probabilities are for a foreign birth, merely that it is not illogical to maintain that a foreign birth is quite consistent with the facts as we know them, the Certification of Live Birth, the procedures and regulations in place in Hawaii in 1961, and two statements of Doctor Fukino.
I think we probably both can agree that we will find nothing in the file which shows foreign birth. We might also find nothing in the file apart from the Obama family's self serving declarations which show a domestic birth-and perhaps not even such declarations. That would leave the ball where it is but that is a defeat for us. We have the burden to move it across the goal line. Even if the original birth certificate were released and it was revealed that it was based on family affidavits, we lose. We need extrinsic evidence of foreign birth.
