Certifigate: Fukino “Declares” Natural Born Citizenship; Radio Talkers Lose Jobs on Eligibility
In response to recent press coverage over Mr. Obama’s birth certificate, CNN/US President Jon Klein reportedly sent an email that claimed that the Hawaii Department of Health had “discarded” (read: destroyed) paper-based vital records back in 2001. Yet, HI DoH spokeswoman Janice Okubo was quoted by the Honolulu Advertiser that the department doesn’t destroy records:
Hawai’i’s Health Department confirmed yesterday that it has President Obama’s original Aug. 4, 1961, birth certificate in storage, but the announcement is unlikely to satisfy conspiracy theorists who insist Obama was born in Kenya.
“We don’t destroy vital records,” Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo said. “That’s our whole job, to maintain and retain vital records.”
WorldNetDaily had further quotes from Ms. Okubo:
“I am not aware of any birth certificate records that have been destroyed by the department,” Janice Okubo, public information officer for the Hawaii DOH, told WND. “When the department went electronic in 2001, vital records, whether in paper form or any other form, [were] maintained. We don’t destroy records.”
Okubo affirmed that beginning in 2001, all vital records, including birth records, moved to electronic formats.
“Any records that we had in paper or any other form before 2001 are still in file within the department,” she insisted. “We have not destroyed any vital statistics records that we have.”
As long -time readers of this blog know, Mr. Obama’s original birth certificate is one of the two main points regarding his eligibility to hold the office of the presidency. As such, it’s important to know that the certification of live birth, as CNN’s Lou Dobbs had pointed out during his interview with Roland “S.” Martin, is merely a piece of paper that is based upon another piece of paper that the great State of Hawaii still has on file.
Then, yesterday, it was being reported that the Hawaii Director of Public Health, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, allegedly released the following statement:
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack [Mr. Obama's name is misspelled here and here, but not here and here] Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago….”
It is unfortunate that individuals such as myself must go through the process of parsing the dear Director’s statement, but since the opposition (isn’t it a shame, incidentally, that there has to be opposition regarding the American Constitution?) has shown absolute and sheer intellectual dishonesty on this story, we must.
And I really do mean this. It is amazing to me that those dear opposition commenters haven’t noticed some glaring inconsistencies with the above paragraph. In other words, if everyone would simply take a few minutes to sit down, read and understand what the good doctor is saying, a lot of things would get cleared up quite quickly.
A concerned citizen pointed me to this location for the actual statement.
One of the goals of my site has been to get to the bottom of exactly who has the authority — if such declaration of authority exists — to make the determination that, say, a candidate for President is eligible (I have been tracking this via my Qualifications category). We already know that no laws exist that require a candidate to establish their eligibility for the presidency, and that the category to which I’ve referred will show that major political parties merely require a candidate to sign a self-ascribing document in which they declare themselves to be eligible with no other substantiation (meaning: “trust me”).
So, by what authority does Dr. Chiyome Fukino, a State-level official and employee, use to make any sort of declaration as to the eligibiliy of any candidate for office? Is this authority not primarily vested within a given State’s Secretary of State? Are we supposed to be simply “taking her word for it,” despite the fact that it is likely not vested in her to be making such statements?
Please — someone show me the specific law citation that provides for the Hawaiian Department of Health Director to be able to officially make such statements. I’ll go even further:
If someone can cite for me the specific law that gives eligibility-making power to the State’s Department of Health Director and such law can be independently verified for a circumstance such as this, you will have single-handedly accomplished two things: (1) authoritatively made the eligibility issue go away (assuming that proper documentation can be shown to substantiate such a finding) and (2) shown that such a law governing the eligibility of presidential candidates does, in fact, exist.
Thirdly, TheObamaFile.com performs a great comparative analysis of the different statements that Dr. Fukino is using:
Now this is a subtle change from Fukino’s previous statement. In the original statement, Fukino says that she has personally seen the original birth certificate. OK, lets’ take her at her word. Hawaii has the original document.
Now, watch the language Fukino uses in her latest declaration — “I…have seen the original vital records maintained on file…”
Those are two completely different statements. In the first, she is describing a document — a piece of paper. In the second she is describing an electronic data set — data stored on a disc. Fukino is carefully parsing her words and clearly dissimulating, but why?
Now let’s examine what USA Today is reporting: “Hawaii’s health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives.”
That statement is false. It is not what Fukino said. Fukino did not say, “she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives” — and USA Today even put their made-up statement within quotes.
In fact, the same site goes on to point out quite the glaring inconsistency regarding the certification of live birth, the electronic document being bandied about by “illegitimizers” on the blogosphere:
In 1961, the Public Health Services, U. S Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics Division published the “Vital Statistics of the United States — Volume I — Nativity.”
Here is a .pdf copy of the 246-page document — if you don’t have high-speed Internet connection, go get a cup of coffee when you click the link.
Section 5, the Technical Appendix, contains text discussion of factors affecting the collection, classification, and interpretation of the natality statistics published in this volume.
Subsection 5-7 contains the requirements for “Sources of Data,” and contains an image (page 228) of the “Standard Certificate of Live Birth,” issued by the National Vital Statistics Division. The Standard Certificate of Live Birth (page 227), issued by the National Vital Statistics Division, which has served for many years as the principal means of attaining uniformity in the content of the documents used to collect information on this event. It has been modified in each state to the extent necessitated by the particular needs of the State or by special provisions of the State vital statistics law. However, the certificates of most States conform closely in content and arrangement to the standard certificate.
The “Standard Certificate of Live Birth” contains the father’s race in block #8 and the mother’s race in block #13. Hawaii’s “Certificate of Live Birth” contains the the father’s race in block #13a and the mother’s race in block #12a.
Now, here comes the good stuff. Page 231 contains the requirements for “Race and color.”
“Births in the United States in 1961 are classified for vital statistics into white, Negro, American Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawaiian and Part-Hawaiian (combined), and “other nonwhite.”
Do you see a classification for “African?” I certainly don’t.
Now, let’s look at the document that Obama has provided for certifying his eligibility for the Office of the President of the United States and that is displayed on Annenberg FatCheck.org.
FATHER’S RACE is “African” — an incorrect entry for that data field. Just a typo? I don’t think so. The Obot who created the bogus Certification of Live Birth just couldn’t type the word “Negro.” Negro is just not politically correct, don’tcha know.
Oh, what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
This information was provided by Steve Cee, a genealogist, who has also authored this new analysis (graphics-heavy MS Word document) of the Obama Certification of Live Birth (COLB). Steve’s contribution adds to Dr. Ron Polarik’s extensive forensic examination.
Obama’s COLB is demonstrably counterfeit. It’s a fraud — as is Obama. [emphases added]
If you want to know a part of what influenced me to start my site back on October 24, 2008, the above tid-bit was a key point. The only way to corroborate this story is to actually inspect the original, 1961 birth certificate, since we know it still exists. This information would have to be properly released, because, as I have discovered, it’s not legally public information.
Update: Per WorldNetDaily, it is a possibility that Dr. Fukino may have broken the law with the above official admission:
Responding to the growing controversy over the White House’s refusal to release President Obama’s original long-form birth certificate, Hawaii’s director of health issued a statement yesterday about the document in apparent contravention of Hawaiian law.
Dr. Chiyome Fukino declared she has seen the “original birth records” that verify Obama was born in Hawaii and is a “natural-born American citizen,” the Honolulu Advertiser reported.
But in two separate telephone interviews with WND, Janice Okubo, the Health Department’s public information officer, told WND that Hawaii law prohibited her from commenting on the birth records of any specific person.
Okubo cited Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 338-18, which pertains to “Disclosure of Records.”
That section of Hawaii state law states regarding the release of vital statistics records, “The department shall not permit inspection of public health statistics records, or issue a certified copy of any such record or part thereof, unless it is satisfied that the applicant has a direct and tangible interest in the record.”
WND asked Okubo last night how Fukino could comment on Obama’s particular birth records without violating the statute.
“I’m not a legal authority, and you’d have to talk to someone who is a legal authority,” Okubo said. “I don’t have that kind of legal expertise.”
In a previous interview, Okubo also refused to answer a direct question from WND about whether Obama’s original long-form birth certificate still was on file with the Hawaii DOH, responding: “I cannot comment on any specific vital statistics records belonging to any individual because that is against the law in Hawaii.”
Fukino appears to have violated state law twice.
Last October, she commented on Obama’s birth certificate by issuing an official press release that stated she had “personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.”
Yet, as I mentioned above, the birth certificate is only one part of the story. The other part has to do with Mr. Obama’s nationality status at birth. Attorney Leo Donofrio created a posting today in response to Dr. Fukino’s reported statement by the press:
Well kiddies we really shook them up yesterday with our post revealing the US Supreme Court’s most on point decision regarding the definition of “natural-born citizen” in the case of Minor v. Happersettwhich was decided six years after the 14th Amendment was adopted. They were quick to respond weren’t they.
After building up the main stream media pressure for the last week for what was sure to be a long form BC in the face, they were confronted with a severe blow to the mantra that the 14th Amendment defines “natural born citizen”. It doesn’t and SCOTUS confirms this in Minor. Their response was an emergency statement by Hawaii’s Department of Health which seeks to stop the fire we started yesterday. Their response was literally concocted only hours after our last post.
To recap, yesterday we proved that the most on point and controlling decision in our entire history of SCOTUS jurisprudence with regard to the definition of the term “natural-born citizen” – the Minor case – unequivocally states that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not defined in the Constitution. This analysis destroys the Obama eligibility supporter mantra that 14th Amendment “native born” citizenship is equal to “natural-born” citizenship.
SCOTUS clearly states in Minor, six years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution:
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.
That passage establishes two important legal facts which cannot be overturned by any Birth Certificate.:
1. it establishes as precedent that the definition of natural-born citizen is not contained in the body of the Constitution and that we must look elsewhere for the definition
2. it establishes doubt that persons born in the US to foreign parents can be President
This is the most on point decision in our legal history as a nation regarding the definition of the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen. As such, it not only deserves respect – it demands it.
Yet, apparently Yahoo news and every other main stream news source in the country would have you believe that Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino is a better Constitutional scholar and source of law than our own Supreme Court precedent.
Only hours after I posted my analysis of the Minor case, Fukino issued the following statement:
“I … have seen the original vital records maintained on file by theHawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen…”
Wow! Fukino has transmogrified the Constitution. She, and she alone is the sole arbiter of who is and who isn’t a natural-born citizen. Incredible. Where did she get her law degree? Or is she simply the great legal oracle of our generation. Have we discovered, as the monks discover the new Dalai Llama, the legendary great legal oracle of our generation?
Since the Supreme Court has stated in Minor that the definition of “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution, then 14th Amendment citizenship does not establish that any of us are natural-born citizens eligible to be President. The Supreme Court makes it clear as the sun that we have to look beyond the Document for such a determination. Not just for Obama, but for any of us seeking to be President. The natural born citizen requirement was meant to protect the nation from foreign invasion and influence.
The Minor case also tells us that doubts exist as to whether native born persons of foreign parents can be natural-born citizens. And with that SCOTUS decision is supposed to come legal precedent and respect. But apparently the great legal oracle Fukino thinks because she maintains a database of birth records, she is now an authority on Constitutional law.
And this is where our main stream media goes for Constitutional law advice – to Hawaii’s Department of Health Director.
Well Fukino, since the Supreme Court states you must look outside the Constitution to determine the meaning of “natural-born citizen”, please tell us where you went to make this monumental announcement that Obama is a natural-born citizen. Please do tell. Because as we’ve said all along at this blog, we believe Obama was born in Hawaii.
We’ve also said that when push comes to shove Hawaii is going to verify that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Now Hawaii is going even further than we anticipated. Not only is Hawaii saying Obama was born in Hawaii, Hawaii is also now defining natural-born citizen for the rest of United States history.
Yes, it’s true, Fukino mandates from her little cubicle at the Department of Health in Hawaii that she has overruled the US Supreme Court inMinor v. Happersett and she has seen the light of legal truth and all doubts mentioned by SCOTUS in Minor can now be discarded. The great legal oracle of Hawaii has spoken.
What a load of crap this is. Thanks to all the BC fringe for giving such power to the BC. I’ve told you a million times that the BC does not matter at all. If Obama were born on the mall in DC in a manger rocked by Ronald Reagan sipping a Martini while reading a masonic Bible with a million man march full of witnesses, Obama would still not be eligible to be President.
The Supreme Court has unequivocally expressed such doubts in Minor. And that being said, I will admit that while SCOTUS has expressed such doubts, they have never defined “natural-born citizen” either. While I believe the great weight of evidence proves he is not eligible, I will not be as low down filthy as the opposition and tell you that the law has been determined. It has not. But it should be. And that’s what I’ve been saying all along.
SCOTUS expressed their doubts about Obama’s eligibility in Minor. The current court should have clarified the issue with a decision. Obama should have asked them to clarify such an important doubt by bringing the Arizona sworn affirmation to them and asking whether he could sign it without committing perjury.
But the great legal oracle Fukino manages to save the day only hours after the Supreme Court’s Minor decision was finally decoded to reveal beyond any doubt that…
“native born” does not = “natural born” …
Not according to the US Supreme Court – not for Obama and not for any of us.
If you want to be President, you have to prove more than just the fact that you are a citizen of this country. You must prove you are a “natural-born citizen” and Fukino can’t prove that by showing a long form Obama BC. And neither can Obama. And neither can you.
That’s right. None of us have a long form BC which can prove we are eligible to be President because, as far as I can tell, while our long form birth certificates contain the names and residences of our parents, they do not contain citizenship information. Since 14th Amendment citizenship, according to SCOTUS in Minor, does not define “natural-born citizen”, the court states that we must look elsewhere to make that decision.
The court unequivocally stated in Minor that we should look at the nationality of the parents and if the parents are US citizens, and the child is born in the US, then the child is a natural-born citizen of the US. If the child is subject to a foreign nationality through a parent then there are doubts which were clearly expressed by SCOTUS in Minor. Obama’s father was NEVER a US citizen. Obama also admits that his birth status was governed by Great Britain. Obama chose the word “governed”, not me.
But Fukino has overruled the United States Supreme Court today in a direct assault on the legal truths exposed by this blog yesterday. What an amazing turn of events. At least we’ve discovered who the great legal oracle of our generation is. It’s not Obama and it’s not me. It’s Fukino. She is the greatest legal mind of our generation. All hail the great legal oracle form Hawaii. [emphases original]
As if the brouhaha over the President’s eligibility weren’t bizarre enough (so much to be made over a supposed non-story), now individuals in talk radio are beginning to lose their jobs over the mere discussion of the topic: (via WND.com)
WASHINGTON – A pair of Louisiana FM radio talkers say they got canned following an interview with WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah on the subject of Barack Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office.
“The end began for us a couple of weeks ago when Joseph Farah from WorldNetDaily.com was interviewed on our show regarding the ‘Where’s The Birth Certificate?’ campaign,” said Daniel “Spike” Harville. “That afternoon I stopped by the AM radio station and the owner, Mrs. Ruby Collins, took the opportunity to give me an earful about the show with Mr. Farah. She told me, and I later confirmed with the secretary, the phones had been ringing off of the hook all morning with complaints that we would question Obama’s eligibility to be president. Several of those callers threatened to call the FCC and complain.”
Harville said Collins told him she was “afraid of the Obama administration sending a bunch of lawyers, the IRS and the FCC to close her down, so we needed to cool it.”
The next day, when the co-host of the “Mike and Spike Show,” G. Michael Lee was in the KNCB offices, the subject of Joseph Farah came up again, and he was chastised by the owner.
Lee said he was told to tone down the political talk and not mention Obama again.
The final blow came July 22 when the talkers discussed a weekend date by Lee’s daughter. He showed up for dinner dressed in a suit – a marked contrast to the previous appearance when he wore a cap on sideways, baggy pants and a tank top. Lee told the young man he looked like a thug.
A caller then accused the pair of speaking in racial code.
Immediately following that show, the ax fell on the “Mike and Spike Show.”
“We were very involved with the tea party movement and were able to give them lots of radio coverage,” said Lee. “We also interviewed some wonderful people on the air including Ann Coulter, Dog the Bounty Hunter, several people from Newt Gingrich’s office, including Dr. Bill Forstgen, and WND news guru Joseph Farah. Our goal was to raise the awareness of the average listener whether they knew it or not. We are now looking for another station or syndicator.”
The show was heard in Louisiana, Texas and Arkansas.
On a significantly more positive note, a concerned citizen communicated with me about their experience in discussing the eligibility issue with an Air America (a left-wing talk radio network) affiliate, 760 AM Progressive Talk out of Denver, CO:
Dear Phil,
I had a small victory today when I called local Denver talk radio station 760 AM Progressive Talk, which is one of the Air American stations. The radio host was Mario Solis Marich. My call was a follow up to their flippant commentary about the “birthers” and Lou Dobbs. I didn’t actually think they would put me on and I certainly didn’t think that would allow me to clarify some of their “misunderstandings”. They are obviously agenda driven. I must have caught them by surprise for they allowed me to explain that the birth certificate is a red herring and it is not the only issue that needs to be examined. I mentioned his dual citizenship, by his own admission in his book DREAMS FROM MY FATHER. Of course Mario finally cut me off and started talking over me, putting me in a conspiracy group of birthers, moon landing hoax, 9-11 truthers, etc…. In spite of his emotional rants, I was occasionally allowed to correct him on every point he tried to make, all of them being false. After 10 minutes he cut me off, for it was not a fair fight. I was able to get 10 minutes and rationally explain the facts, the Constitutional requirements and made the point that Obama has failed as yet to prove that he is qualified. After he cut me off he ranted on for another 20 minutes on his own attacking me, and those who want Obama to prove his eligibility, (including calling us racists). However, not surprisingly he never once tried to support Obama based on facts. “Facts are stubborn things” – John Adams.
The entire talk radio audience in Denver is 2.1 million so I don’t know how many my message actually reached. Hopefully there were a few critical thinkers that were listening.
…
Yes, the experience was satisfying. Once they woke up it was a struggle to get a word in edgewise but I managed, and unlike Mario, I was calm, polite and stayed on point. Just one example: When the host lumped me in a big group of right wing birthers (as well as “you republicans”, “you conservatives”) I explained that he was wrong to make a blanket statement and lump me in with a group, what I am is someone that believes that we should uphold the Constitution. He responded by falsely stating that the Supreme Court had already decided this issue a long time ago. He said that they had that information “around here somewhere” but of course he was not able to come up with anything. I corrected him again and stated that the Supreme Court hadn’t decided anything for they had not taken a case yet, but there were 38+ state and federal suits trying to get Obama to prove his eligibility that were pending As I said earlier, it was not a fair fight. When he finally dumped my call he hit a prerecorded message of someone calling somebody a loser over and over. When I heard this on the radio a minute or so after the end of the call I realized how effective my call had been. They went to a break and when he came back on the air he went into his irrational rant for 20 minutes. My points were made on the air at their expense and he sounded foolish. My guess is that both he and his call screener will be spoken to for allowing this to happen.
…
Keep fighting the good fight.
I congratulated this individual for simply calmly and rationally making their case and letting the blow-back of irrational ad hominems fly by, taking no personal offense (considering the host’s own ignorance of the subject), and simply continuing on. After all, the host has every right to guide the show as they see fit, and if they don’t like you, that’s their problem, not yours.
As I’ve said before, being consistent and persistent will ultimately win the proverbial battle. Well, that, and the fact that presidential eligibility is about more than simply a birth certificate; it’s also an issue of his nationality status at birth. And if we’re being intellectually honest with ourselves, we won’t fear knowing as much about the President’s background as we can possibly know.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
“News Flash!!! Vital records verify themselves” HistorianDude
News Flash!!! OBAMA’S KENYAN BIRTH CERTIFICATE FOUND!!! Vital records verify themselves.
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1
If Vital Records verified themselves that would mean they had been deemed in statute to be irrebuttably or conclusively presumptive. No Hawaii or federal law makes this presumption with regard to vital records: vital records in Hawaii are prima facie, and thus accorded a presumption rebutted with any evidence which leads to alternative logical conclusions to the supposed fact(s) presumed. Unless, of course, HistorianDude can cite a legal authority which does not define Hawaii vital records as prima facie or defines the concept of prima facie in Hawaii or federal law in some other way.
Hawaii Revised Statutes:
§338-12 Evidentiary character of certificates. Certificates filed within thirty days after the time prescribed therefor shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
§338-17 Late or altered certificate as evidence. The probative value of a “late” or “altered” certificate shall be determined by the judicial or administrative body or official before whom the certificate is offered as evidence.
§338-41 (b) Any certificate of Hawaiian birth issued heretofore under or by virtue of any law of the Territory of Hawaii or the State, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated…Prima facie evidence overcome by competent evidence of nonidentification.
Obama’s COLB (if it exists) is a CertificaTION of Live Birth, a document which attests that the real vital record, the original CertifcATE of Live Birth is held on file. A COLB (CertificaTION of Live Birth) such as Obama’s (if it exists) draws its information from a selected and reduced dataset, held in electronic form, which is abstracted from the more detailed and complete paper original. To such a document as Obama’s COLB (if it exists) the Federal Rules of Evidence (cited below) and Hawaii statute (cited above) apply, which is why Hawaii COLBs state at their lower edge: “prima facie evidence“.
If HistorianDude still believes vital records verify themselves then Obama’s Kenyan Birth Certificate verifies itself, no? Or don’t online images, or online images which the ostensible issuing authority has not confirmed as being theirs, count as evidence?
In future: fewer finger-jabbing expressions like “see you in court” and fewer statements of artificially inflated opinion, more citations of legal authorities and more rational arguments, please.
HistorianDude,
That’s the equivalent of predicting that the vast majority of cases petitioned to the Supreme Court won’t be heard.
-Phil
Who Are You Kidding:
News Flash!!! Vital records verify themselves. They are the standard. It is the very reason we have them in the first place.
Get a case into a court of law and we’ll see.
Except when the predictions are very easy to make. As in this issue.
If Fukino had actually said that she had verified that Obama “was born in Hawai’i” this would have meant that she had investigated and verified the facts and details behind the records of Obama’s birth. Fukino very studiedly did not say anything remotely like that. Fukino said that the “vital records…on file” verified that Obama “was born in Hawai’i“. But what verifies the vital records?
Only the facts that vital records are presumed to represent can verify vital records. If the facts do not correspond to the records then the records cannot be presumed to truly verify the facts they purport to represent. It is precisely for this reason that vital records are deemed in law to be no more than prima facie evidence, accorded merely a rebuttable and not a conclusive presumption. The law recognizes that people can and sometimes do lie when it is in their self interest, thus it establishes safeguards such as swearing under oath, statutes against perjury, and (anticipating deception) no more than a prima facie presumption of vital records being true. A prima facie presumption cannot withstand the introduction of any evidence which leads to alternative logical conclusions about the fact(s) only presumed to be true.
The presumption of Obama’s COLB to accurately represent the facts of his birth can be rebutted in a court of law on the basis of these Rules of Evidence:
1 Obama’s COLB is NOT a true duplicate “by the same impression… or matrix…or by other equivalent techniques…which accurately reproduces the original” (FRE Rule 1001), especially when “to prove the content of a writing…the original writing…is required” (FRE Rule 1002), and particularly given that a duplicate is not admissible “to the same extent as an original” if “(1) a genuine question is raised as to the authenticity of the original…or (2) it would be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.” (FRE Rule 1003).
2 Obama’s COLB does NOT satisfy the Completeness Rule under which, “when a writing…or part thereof is introduced“, the opposing party can “require the introduction…of any other part or any other writing…which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it.” (FRE Rule 106).
3 Obama’s COLB does NOT satisfy the Best Evidence Rule, which requires that the evidence brought to court must be the best that the nature of the case will allow and the most reliable proof of a document’s existence and its contents.
4 Under FRE Rule 301 the following evidence must establish that it is logically IMPOSSIBLE for any conclusion to be made except that Obama Jr was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, otherwise the COLB’s prima facie presumption disappears:
a The type of record which originally registered Obama’s birth in 1961 is unknown.
b The informant who registered originally registered Obama’s birth in 1961 is unknown.
c The precise location in Hawaii of Obama’s purported birth in 1961 is unknown.
d To a near certainty the “Mother’s Address” (6085 Kalanianaole Highway) entered into Obama Jr’s original birth record is false, as no evidence connects either the Dunham’s or Obama’s to this house.
e Over decades Dunham family members deliberately concealed from other family, friends, authors, and interviewers that Ann Dunham Obama was domiciled (domicile=residence+intention) in Washington (almost certainly as an in-state student attesting domicile) within three weeks of the registration of Obama Jr’s birth. (Rules 803 and 804: hearsay exceptions). This domicile is only rebuttable by a preponderance of the evidence, with the burden of proof on the contesting party.
f Ann Dunham Obama lied under oath about satisfying the legal two years domicile requirement to divorce in Hawaii, thus no document with which Ann Dunham Obama is associated (eg a birth certificate) can ever be accepted prima facie.
Taking into account all other matters of law and procedure applying to this case, as it’s clearly irrational to claim that no other logical conclusion is possible from a–f except that Obama Jr was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961, the presumption fails under FRE Rule 301.
In a dispute the only motive (or pretext) for not allowing access to the facts and details that would permit conclusive verification of records is that the records cannot be conclusively verified by the facts. The facts and details in the matter of Obama’s birth are not conclusively verified by what we have been allowed to see and know thus far; as a consequence definitive verification on this basis alone is impossible. If at every opportunity Obama and his attorneys strive to block access to facts and details which would conclusively verify his records the American people can deduce with near certainty that on investigation the facts will not match the records.
That’s why a million dollars has been spread around, attempting to ensure that Obama’s COLB never sees the inside of any court.
“My track record on predicting these things remains perfect, Who.” HistorianDude
Nobody is ever that perfect. HistorianDude never learned that?
“I hold contempt for people who dishonestly try to hide their actual and dishonorable agenda…” HistorianDude
Sounds like a mission…and sounds like what patriots with a mission always say. It’s their last refuge.
“…vacuous speculation…”
Anything so flimsy should be easily rebutted. Still waiting.
“…unless you can point us to the state of HI site that makes the above statement…I would find the statement of the unknown person who wrote this report less than credible.” Black Lion
The problem is that journalism and public service generally in the controversy of Obama bona fides have such little credibility that many established media outlets and even the named sources cannot be trusted. For example, in early June Black Lion was convinced that “[Hawaii DoH] indicated that this [long form] does not exist. It seems like there is only one form [the short form]” – by which Black Lion meant that, having been destroyed by Hawaii DoH, Obama’s original paper vital records (the “long form” or whatever) was no longer available for production or verification by Obama and his attorneys. All this from one short newspaper article and one named source (Janice Okubu). Now Black Lion is confident that Fukino’s latest statement citing “vital records” on file proves Obama to be Hawaii born. Say what? At the time Who Are You Kidding cautioned Black Lion to “read the article more closely and carefully.”
Let’s consider some other factoids that Black Lion probably believes on the basis of just one or two sources: the FactCheck COLB photographed by two partizan researchers, even though one frontal shot has no official seal discernable by eye or software; Obama’s birth at Kapiolani, even though the two sources who claim this (Obama and sister) have also recorded Queen’s Hospital as his place of birth (Illinois General Assembly Encyclopedia and Rainbow Edition); the “Mother’s Address” (6085 Kalanianaole Highway) entered in Obama’s 1961 birth record by the unknown informant, even though there is absolutely no evidence to link either the Dunhams or the Obamas to this location; Obama’s Selective Service registration, even though it conveys many signs of being a fabrication (which at the very least by law disqualifys Obama from serving in the Executive Branch of government); Obama’s attendance at Columbia College, even though only two obscure (but apparently politically committed) ex-students from among hundreds ever saw Obama at Columbia College, Obama never connects with any class renunions, and he doesn’t appear in any year book.
As for the who and the how of the registration of Obama’s birth in 1961, or almost any other biographical record, fact, or claim attaching to Obama: until we are able to verify all Obama’s records (wherever they may be) against the facts they purport to represent (whatever they may be) then anonymity, half-truth, innuendo, spin, and lies will seek to colonize this environmental niche from all sides. One named or shamed source more or less cannot determine the truth in this matter.
Obama has apparently put in the public domain practically all of the information to be found in a Hawaii long form certificate. Why doesn’t he summon the courage and leadership and put America out of her misery? Politics? That petty???
Phil:
Wink wink, nudge, nudge.
HistorianDude,
I never claimed that Sun Yat-sen’s documentation that he presented before Hawaii at the time proved that he was born in Hawaii, so I’m really not sure where you’re going with your argument.
-Phil
Phil:
As usual, you demonstrate a habit of frantically trying to change the subject when things are going badly for you.
No. The point is not whether or not they did something “new.” It is whether or not they did something completely different.
A Territory is not a State.
Laws in 1904 are not the laws in 1961.
A 38 year old man is not a 4 day old baby.
A “Certificate of Hawaiian Birth” is not a “Certification of Live Birth”
A “Secretary of the Territory” is not a “Director of the Department of Health.”
A document that does not prove citizenship is not a document that does prove citizenship.
How is it that you find “obvious” things that are not even true?
Who Are You Kidding:
And that single fact alone establishes, by law, absolute legal proof of citizenship. Unless and until you present a single piece of evidence (not your beloved and vacuous speculation, actual evidence) that contradicts those “original vital record” you are merely hand waving.
That would be fascinating were it true. But it is not. Even your quotation from Joe Farah’s website doesn’t say so. In engages in some qualified speculation… but then again, what Birther doesn’t?
It’s called “gloating when you’ve been proven right.” Again.
My track record on predicting these things remains perfect, Who. As is my track record on predicting the outcome of Birther court cases, and make believe “grand jury” presentments, and Orly’s submission of “dossiers,” and the likely response of the US Military to ill-considered political grandstanding by its officers…
So, yes, it is an odd spectacle. But I do have one correction.
I hold no “contempt for the mere suggestion that Obama’s records should be examined by the American people.” I hold contempt for people who dishonestly try to hide their actual and dishonorable agenda behind the undeserved veneer of “patriot” and pretense of caring on whit for the Constitution.
And yes, it oozes.
Black Lion,
I never said that the HI DoH wasn’t doing “what it was supposed to do.” I simply said that they’re merely going on information (which we have no access to) that they believe to be accurate.
-Phil
Who Are You Kidding says:
July 29, 2009 at 7:59 pm
“In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”… I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii [and pre-natal and post-natal certifications] …the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications [now required] had probably not been in force in the ‘60s…there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.”
http://tinyurl.com/WJ-report
_________________________________________________________________
Who Are You Kidding, can you provide us with the link from the state of HI that backs up your statement? Because that so called report that you reference from the western center for journalism is World Net Daily. And they have been wrong quite a few times. For instance in their so called report they do not mention names of people they spoke with nor do they provide you with evidence from the state. Nor does the writer of the article identify himself.
Secondly how many births happened in Honolulu outside of a hospital? The article does not provide that information. For a major city like Honolulu, it would be a pretty small number. Out of 8268 births, only 14 did not happen in a hospital. That is less than 1%. So Obama’s birth was one of those 14? I would find that hard to believe.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsus/vsus_1961_1.pdf
So unless you can point us to the state of HI site that makes the above statement regarding mailing information in regarding birth information, I would find the statement of the unknown person who wrote this report less than credible.
Phil says:
July 29, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Black Lion,
Again, you’re failing to see the truth of the matter hidden in plain sight.
It’s the fact that the Territory of Hawaii did exactly the same thing with Sun Yat-sen that the State of Hawaii is doing now with Barack Hussein Obama.
__________________________________________________________________
Phil, that is just not true. The State of HI did was it was supposed to to. A birth happened, it was registered within 4 days, and filed. The COLB has all of the relevant information. The Territory of HI, had a separate program and did something completly different. It allowed someone that was over 18 declare that they were a citizen and had witnesses declare that. When you look at both certificates, the differences are obvious. The state is affirming what the COLB states due to US Federal laws and federal requirements. When HI was a territory, these regulations were not in place. A lot of people back then did not have birth certificates. This was almost 100 years ago. Now if you can find someone since 1961, that has a HI BC or a COLB that states that they were born in HI, and they were born elsewhere, then your argument would make more sense and have a legal leg to stand on. You are comparing 2 documents from 2 eras, that are not even the same document. A Certificate of Hawaiian Birth is different than a Certificae of Live birth.
“Mystery” solved. A black Kenyan in 1961 would have understood his race to be “African.”
That would be more relevant if we know who filled out the birth certificate information.
Black Lion,
Again, you’re failing to see the truth of the matter hidden in plain sight.
It’s not about the number of fields on the document. It’s not about the fact that standards have changed in terms of what’s accepted now versus what was accepted then.
It’s the fact that the Territory of Hawaii did exactly the same thing with Sun Yat-sen that the State of Hawaii is doing now with Barack Hussein Obama.
That is the relevancy of the issue, that there has or had been a trend in place whereby the State asserts what it believes to be the case.
-Phil
HistorianDude,
And yet you fail to see the obviousness in plain sight, which is the following:
Hawaii is doing nothing new in making such proclamations from the time of Sun Yat-sen to the time of Barack Hussein Obama.
That is the point to this exercise.
-Phil
Phil says:
July 29, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Black Lion,
I read the referenced article and I see absolutely nothing that says anything about the “irrelevancy” (as you put it) of Hawaii being a territory versus being a State with respect to issuing birth certificates.
Therefore, instead of turning this into a “they-said, they-said”-kind of situation, why don’t you go ahead and cite the laws that say that “[w]hat happened before HI was a state is irrelevant,” because, in reality, you’re expressing an unofficial opinion, and we already have the paperwork in hand.
-Phil
___________________________________________________________________
Phil,
Sun Yet-Sen received a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth. This is different than the Certiificate of Live Birth, which is what President Obama has…
“The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established in 1911, during the territorial era, to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii. The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Program was terminated in 1972, during the statehood era.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/hawnbirth.html
It is irrelevant due to the fact that the standards were different once HI became a state. There is a good breakdown of the entire Sun issue and how is COHB is different than President Obama’s COLB. Remember Sun Yat Sen has a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth and President Obama has a Certification of Live Birth. This is an essential difference…So there is no real comparison…
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2139603/posts
Phil:
Oh, its much simpler than that, Phil.
The certificate was filed 28 years after it says Sun Yat-Sen was born. And that doesn’t even count the fact that he was actually born ten years earlier than the certificate says.
So, it fails the second of the US State Departments requirements as proof of citizenship, which requires filing withing one year of birth. Unlike Obama’s COLB 9wich meets the State Department regulations perfectly) Sun Yat-Sen’s Certificate of Hawaiian Birth is not evidence of American citizenship.
See? The State Department’s regulations work perfectly.
brygenon,
Your words, not mine.
I think my latest posting expresses my sentiments quite well.
-Phil
Black Lion,
I read the referenced article and I see absolutely nothing that says anything about the “irrelevancy” (as you put it) of Hawaii being a territory versus being a State with respect to issuing birth certificates.
Therefore, instead of turning this into a “they-said, they-said”-kind of situation, why don’t you go ahead and cite the laws that say that “[w]hat happened before HI was a state is irrelevant,” because, in reality, you’re expressing an unofficial opinion, and we already have the paperwork in hand.
-Phil
So the ONLY thing that can prove Obama is lying would be the SSN # issued from Conn. and that it belongs to someone 100+ years old.
“Yesterday was a bad day in Birfistan…Birthers have repeatedly complained about the ambiguity in Dr. Fukino’s October 31 statement…about how “she never actually said that Obama was born in Hawaii”…when she finally comes out and says what they were complaining she didn’t say earlier…” HistorianDude
A more thorough comprehension of the usages of the English language would have prevented HistorianDude’s inflated self-regard launching yet another dud.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health verifying Barrack Hussein Obama was born in Hawai’i and is a natural-born American citizen.”
Fukino did not say SHE verified that Obama was born in Hawaii. Fukino said that it was the “original vital records…in Hawaii…” which verified that “…Obama was born in Hawai’i”. Given that a birth in 1961 could be registered by mail with no questions asked at Hawaii Vital Records, those vital records could just as easily “verify”, say, that the President of China born in Panzhihua was a natural born US citizen, had his immigrant parents mailed in the so-called “facts” in 1961:
“In 1961, if a person was born in Hawaii but not attended by a physician or midwife, then all that was required was that one of the parents send in a birth certificate to be filed. The birth certificate could be filed by mail. There appears to have been no requirement for the parent to actually physically appear before “the local registrar of the district.” It would have been very easy for a relative to forge an absent parent’s signature to a form and mail it in. In addition, if a claim was made that “neither parent of the newborn child whose birth is unattended as above provided is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from any person having knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate.”… I asked the Dept of Health what they currently ask for (in 2008) to back up a parent’s claim that a child was born in Hawaii. I was told that all they required was a proof of residence in Hawaii [and pre-natal and post-natal certifications] …the employee that I spoke to informed me that the pre-natal and post-natal certifications [now required] had probably not been in force in the ‘60s…there is and was no requirement for a physician or midwife to witness, state or report that the baby was born in Hawaii.” http://tinyurl.com/WJ-report
Whatever pressure Fukino may have been under to extract her latest statement, in any future investigation she has a figleaf to cover her exposure.
” ‘Polarik’ ” is outed!!! HistorianDude
What an odd spectacle to see HistorianDude so obssessed with Polarik’s bona fides, and yet oozing so much contempt for the mere suggestion that Obama’s records should be examined by the American people.
On the “African” entry for race again. Another interesting discovery.
Since the Hawaiian DoH has already explained that they allow parents to self identify for “race,” the fair question is what would Barack Obama Sr. have self identified as? I have already mentioned that it couldn’t possibly have been “Negro,” since that was an American term, and Obama Sr. was from Kenya.
Here are the instructions for the 1962 Kenyan census enumeration form. Note the instructions for indicating race:
http://www.hist.umn.edu/~rmccaa/IPUMSI/CensusForms/Africa/ke1962ef_kenya_enumeration_forms.en.pdf
“Mystery” solved. A black Kenyan in 1961 would have understood his race to be “African.”
SECONDARY FACT: The document posted on the now-disappeared “Fightthesmears” webpage merely represents a *report* indicating the existence of the actual Birth Certificate. Thus, the *report* is entitled, “Certifica-TION* of Live Birth, not *Certifi-CATE* of Live Birth.
PRIMARY FACT: Echoing Leo Donofrio, Esq., New Jersey, the entire birth certificate “issue” is merely a smokescreen to hide the fact that, even if Obama was indeed born on U.S. soil (in which case he would be considered a *NATIVE-born* U.S. citizen), he has never been nor can he ever be a NATURAL-born U.S. citizen simply because his (alleged) father was a British subject (of Kenyan birth) at the time of Obama “JR.’s” BIRTH, rendering Obama Jr. at least a British citizen, and if in fact he was born on U.S. soil, then by the 14th amendment ALSO a NATIVE-born (read “dual”) U.S. citizen. Birth on U.S. soil ALONE is NOT ENOUGH for “Natural-born” status. Both your PARENTS must have been U.S. citizens at the TIME of your birth on U.S. soil.
The writers of the Constitution, most of whose parents held dual citizenship with Britain, rendering these writers NEVER to acquire ‘Natural-born’ status regardless of whether they, themselves, were born within the Colonies, wrote themselves INTO eligibility as presidential candidates in Article 2, Section 1, precisely because they intended that theirs be the ONLY generation of presidential candidates eligible to run as an EXCEPTION to the commonplace understanding that “Natural-born” meant and still means a birth on U.S. soil to at least a FATHER (at that time, the mother’s citizenship was not consequential) who was, at the time of the baby’s birth, a U.S. CITIZEN.
Article 2, Sec. 1, U.S. Constitution:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President …”
Brett:
Sorry to disappoint you, but you have been misled. The document you quote was not from 1758. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, De Vattel’s book had never been translated to include the phrase “natural born citizens.” The translation you offered is from 1797, ten years after the Constitution was written, and 30 years after de Vattel’s death.
Oh and Pat…. if you still find it difficult to understand, then get a load of this 1973 COLB from Hawaii:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bryajw/HardestyPhotos/Keala%20Hardesty%20birth%20certificate.jpg
“American” is hardly any less ordinary a “race” than “African.” At least where I come from.
Pat:
That was explained over a year ago.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
“Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that ‘we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.’”
As an actual African, Obama Sr. would have never called himself a “Negro.” There are no “Negroes” in Africa. Not even in 1961.
It has been established by Clear and Convincing Evidence & by BO’s own admission, that BO is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Thus, there is no more need for debate on this issue.
Now is the time to form Citizen Grand Juries, indict BO, file an Original Jurisdiction Action with SCOTUS and have BO Legally Removed from POTUS.
Constitution Lawyer (i.e. Aristotle the Hun, now that you have outed your own sock puppet):
Make believe “discovery” as part of a make believe “grand jury?”
How droll.
Aristotle the Hun:
Can’t wait to hear what your “five lawyers” have to say. There are a half dozen other lawyers who are already laughing at your bizarre new legal theory over at Politijab.
According to US State Department regulations for “proof of citzenship at birth” the Sun Yat-sen document is just a worthless piece of paper.
It is of no use to you other than as a security blanket.
David:
Actually, you are in error. The “actual document” was provided for public scrutiny over a year ago. Birthers (led by “Polarik”) labeled it a “forgery.” Monday’s statement by Fukino establish that is not a forgery, that he was born in Hawaii after all. And last night’s outing of “Polarik” shows you were wrong to let him lead you anywhere in the first place.
You don’t need a document to change fake facts such as “Obama cannot be a natural born citizen because of his father’s British citizenship at the time of Jr.’s birth.” You just pretty much chuckle at them and move on.
Brett says:
July 29, 2009 at 11:33 am
Phil – In order to be “natural born” according the original definition at the time of the writing of the US Constitution BOTH PARENTS had to be US citizens. Obama Sr. was Kenyan – therefore Obama Jr. is not qualified!
This document from 1758 (just before 1776) is inescapable! Vattel’s Law of Nations, book 1, section 212 – 215 defines “natural born” at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.
__________________________________________________________________
Brett, you do realize that the entire De Vattel theory is just that, a theory. The founders also relied on English law. Specifically cited were the Blackstone opinions regarding English law. Since we were at once an English colony, I would believe that the founding fathers would have referenced that long before a Swiss writers version that was in French and not translated into English until after the Constitution was written.
Secondly as much as you want to use that 2 parents have to be citizens theory, you have to remember that no where in the US Constitution does it say that. That is the only document that can be referenced. There were some SCOTUS rulings that mentioned the De Vattel theory, but they implicitly state that they would not address the issue as a case of law. And the Minor ruling was in regards to an individual born before the 14th ammendment was ratified.
Here is Blackstone’s classic exposition in 1765 of the legal meaning of the term from the Commentaries on the Laws of England.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1: 354 361–62
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it…all children, born out of the king’s ligeance [i.e on foreign soil], whose fatherswere natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.” [The italics are Blackstone's]
Also from the same article…
“Blackstone explicitly grounds natural-born status on location (jus soli), not parentage, except when the child is born abroad. The notion that both parents have to be citizens is false. All children born on American soil are natural-born subjects or citizens. If Obama was born on American soil there would be no controversy. If he was born on foreign soil, the fact that his father was not an American citizen would disqualify him from natural-born citizenship”
http://www.westernjournalism.com/?p=2686
In addition this is how in legal terms the word native is defined…
Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition:
Native. A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to. The term may also include one born abroad, if his parents were then citizens of the country, and not permanently residing in foreign parts. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890.
Mick:
Why then do both of your quotations from it agree with me perfectly?
Earl,
Is that the best you can do? Surely you have something more don’t you? Fire away. I will be waiting breathlessly for your A-Game.
Pat says:
Answered long ago:
Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father’s race and mother’s race are supplied by the parents, and that “we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be.” http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Phil says:
If I tell you that Boise is the capital of Idaho, I’m not trying to claim authority to determine the seat of a state government. You guys don’t know what a natural born citizen is because you don’t want to know. You could simply look it up in Black’s Law Dictionary, or http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ or read Professor Amar’s explanation at http://slate.com/id/2183588/
Being ignorant is your choice. Please don’t project it on Dr. Fukino. When you guys “parsed” her previous statement, you fooled yourselves into thinking that she carefully worded it to avoid answering your real question. Clear enough this time?
Aristotle the Hun says:
July 29, 2009 at 1:31 am
The wording on Sun Yat-sen’s Hawaiian birth certificate reveals that at age 18 he “made application for a Certificate of Birth. And that it appears from his affidavit and the evidence submitted by witnesses that he was born in the Hawaiian Islands.”
________________________________________________________________
Artistotle, you do realize that the Sun Yat-Sen case happened before HI was a state? What happened before HI was a state is irrelevant. President Obama’s COLB was filed 4 days after his birth. It is no different that the individuals that attempt to use a De Vattel to usurp the US Constitution, US Law, and SCOTUS rulings.
See Sun Yat Sen….
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2000/03/16/editorial/smyser.html
Pat says:
July 29, 2009 at 11:05 am
“The one thing that sticks out to me is why does his BC have “African” when during that time (1961) they used “Negro” for race identity?
Can Dr Fukino explain this?”
Call her and ask
Chiyome Fukino, M.D.
Phone (808) 586-4400
Fax (808) 586-4444
Hawaii Act 96: An ACT To Provide For The Issuance of Certificates of Hawaiian Birth
Hawaii Act 96 was in effect when Barack Hussein Obahmadinejihad was born in 1961.
Perhaps Sun Yat Soetoro has a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth…
Download Hawaii Act 96 at the following: http://www.ofbyfor.us.com/page30/page30.html
Sue,
Apparently, everything must be private info, because (as I linked in the posting) when I asked the HI DoH about a certain question regarding the COLB, I was told that all of that was not public information.
However, I don’t think she’s really saying anything new with this statement (see a recent comment on this post by Rev. Sam Sewell) but even if she was, I don’t see what authority she’s using to make such a determination. After all, privacy laws work both ways; officials cannot arbitrarily look at vital records for the sake of doing so.
-Phil
Phil – In order to be “natural born” according the original definition at the time of the writing of the US Constitution BOTH PARENTS had to be US citizens. Obama Sr. was Kenyan – therefore Obama Jr. is not qualified!
This document from 1758 (just before 1776) is inescapable! Vattel’s Law of Nations, book 1, section 212 – 215 defines “natural born” at the time of the writing of the US Constitution.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
§ 213. Inhabitants.
The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.
§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say “of itself,” for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.
Aside from everything else…I still believe Obama is not being honest about his place of birth. The one thing that sticks out to me is why does his BC have “African” when during that time (1961) they used “Negro” for race identity?
Can Dr Fukino explain this?
To John c
The reference to naturalized , natural born , native have been determined to mean the “same” thing are only in deference to ” rights” under the Constitution . We all enjoy the same rights as citizens – BUT that does not qualify us for the Highest office in Government – the one needing most protection from outside alligence is the presidential
title – dual citizenship is clearly a disqualification – and beyond the rhetoric about birth – the possible changes ( suspicion of committing fraud to qualify ) lying to the American people to present or mislead the truth is exactly what Nixon did . Why all of the cover or sealing of basic information none of us would be afraid to show unless we have lied ( say to get a job we disclose a diploma- which we would be proud to display – when we don’t have a degree ) there are many reasons someone may coverup their personal records but the President must disclose all for our benefit – to know he is honest , truthful , honorable , all necessary to lead our nation – all of which , everyday he is proving by his actions he is not – every action he takes leads to a committed lie – the bc is a diversion from all of his fraud – we have no reason to believe anything he says because he refuses to be honest and open his real window to who he is – he only gives us what he wants us to know and if we get close to some un comfortable truth he slams the window – the cost to lie is unimaginable . This web is so big , so corrupt it is hard to wrap your mind around the willingness to lie right to our faces as if we are ignorant dumb little bastards –
night is black and the day is light and he is neither !!
Dr. Fukino has opened the “Door” for Discovery of Everything about Obama in the Hawaiian Files.
This method of Discovery is through the Citizens Grand Jury process that I first wrote about on The Steady Drip months ago:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/03/two-ideas-to-empower-patriots-by.html
All the Evidence necessary was provided to start the process of BO’s Legal Removal:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/03/all-together-now-say-omg.html
The facts and the process for the Legal removal of Obama remain the same:
http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2009/07/our-privilege-our-right-our-duty.html
Phil, Sam, Leo D. et al have done their Duty. Now, it is time for all Citizens, all Patriots to do their Duty for their Country, to form the Grand Juries provided to them in Our Constitution by Our Founding Fathers.
AnoltherReader says:
July 28, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“First of all, we don’t know for sure his birth location. But assuming for a moment that he was not born in Hawaii..”
Yes, we do know without a doubt that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.
You’d do better to concede Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and fall back on your “two parent” argument. Insisting otherwise after Dr Fukino’s unambiguous statement – “Dr Fukino is lying” “She’s just part of the big conspiracy to hide the truth about Obama.” ” There’s something they’re hiding.” “Who does that woman think she is?!” – demonstrates you are really just run-of-the-mill conspiracy theorists, more unbelievable and far-out than the Apollo moon landing deniers.
Bravo Sir, Bravo.
“As one of the GOP operatives whose job it was to defeat Barack Obama in a campaign for federal office (there have only been three GOP campaigns run against him, and I’ve been involved with two of them), I can attest to the fact that nowhere in our opposition research did we find any reason to believe that the man was not a natural born citizen of the United States.”
Bill Pascoe
Campaign Manager for Alan Keyes in his 2004 Senate Campaign against Barack Obama
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003179136
“Polarik” is outed!!!
http://barackryphal.blogspot.com/2009/07/meet-ronald-jay-polland.html
In a bad week for Birthers, it’s been a bad week for “Polarik” in particular. His deliberate faking of evidence was exposed only a few days ago, and now that we can see his real CV we know for a fact that he has lied about several of his claimed degrees, and (most importantly) that he has no discernible expertise in computer forensics, digital imagery, or document examination.
This explains why his analysis of the online COLB image was the hopeless amateurish mess it was always observed to be by actual experts.
But… at least he’s still an “expert” in on-line dating.