Hawaiian Official Again Confirms Obama’s Birth Records, Calls Birthers ‘Ludicrous”
Thanks to Donald Trump, Chiyome Fukino is being asked about Barack Obama’s birth certificate again:
As the top Hawaiian official in charge of state health records in 2008, when the issue of Obama’s birth first arose, Fukino said she thought she had put the matter to rest. Contacted by NBC, Fukino expanded on previous public statements and made two key points when asked about Trump’s recent comments.The first is that the original so-called “long form” birth certificate — described by Hawaiian officials as a “record of live birth” — absolutely exists, located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health. Fukimo said she has personally inspected it — twice. The first time was in late October 2008, during the closing days of the presidential campaign, when the communications director for the state’s then Republican governor, Linda Lingle (who appointed Fukino) asked if she could make a public statement in response to claims then circulating on the Internet that Obama was actually born in Kenya.
Before she would do so, Fukino said, she wanted to inspect the files — and did so, taking with her the state official in charge of vital records. She found the original birth record, properly numbered, half typed and half handwritten, and signed by the doctor who delivered Obama, located in the files. She then put out a public statement asserting to the document’s validity. She later put out another public statement in July 2009 — after reviewing the original birth record a second time.
It is real, and no amount of saying it is not, is going to change that,” Fukino said. Moreover, she added, her boss at the time, Lingle — who was backing John McCain for president — would presumably have to be in on any cover up since Fukino made her public comment at the governor’s office’s request. “Why would a Republican governor — who was stumping for the other guy — hold out on a big secret?” she asked.
Her second point — one she made repeatedly in the interview — is that the shorter, computer generated “certification of live birth” that was obtained by the Obama campaign in 2007 and has since been publicly released is the standard document that anybody requesting their birth certificate from the state of Hawaii would receive from the health department.
“What he got, everybody got,” said Fukino. “He put out exactly what everybody gets when they ask for a birth certificate.”
And, oh yea:
Joshua Wisch, a spokesman for the Hawaii attorney general’s office, noted that a public index of vital records, available for inspection in a bound volume at the Health Department’s Office of Health Status Monitoring, lists a male child named “Obama II, Barack Hussein” as having been born in the state.
Wisch, the spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said state law does not in fact permit the release of “vital records,” including an original “record of live birth” — even to the individual whose birth it records.
“It’s a Department of Health record and it can’t be released to anybody,” he said. Nor do state laws have any provision that authorizes such records to be photocopied, Wisch said. If Obama wanted to personally visit the state health department, he would be permitted to inspect his birth record, Wisch said.
But if he or anybody else wanted a copy of their birth records, they would be told to fill out the appropriate state form and receive back the same computer generated “certification of live birth” form that everybody else gets — which is exactly what Obama did four years ago.
So, there you have it.
I don’t doubt he was born in the US, but Hawaii’s record’s laws are ridiculous. Everyone in the US should get to see his original birth certificate.
Good work Doug.
At least you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the long form birth certificate exists. Let’s hope all those people who insisted that the COLB was the only form that Hawaii had will stop by this thread and apologize for being so stubbornly ignorant.
As to the point that the long form cannot be photocopied at the request of Obama, I realize you were just relaying what was written by others, but as a lawyer, can you conceive of any circumstance where the state could block you if that was what you wanted?
I mean really, do you want to go on record today saying that if the same set of rules and circumstances existed in your state and a client wanted a photocopy of his original birth certificate, you would advise them that there is no way it could be done.
Is that what you’re saying?
Seems like this post would definitively shut down the debate, but no, the idiots march on….
As we wait for Doug to craft a reply to my comment while anticipating a life without clients, let’s have an impromptu quiz of OTB commenters and authors as to what is or isn’t possible.
Please give a response to this question:
“Is it possible for a state government to prevent a person from obtaining a copy of their own original birth certificate, given that the form exists and the person is willing to pay reasonable expenses?”
Releasing a photocopy of the original birth certificate would prove nothing. Photocopies can easily be forged. Signatures can be forged. State officials can be bought off, made to die in “accidents”, etc. Lingle is obviously a socialist sleeper agent in the Republican party. I bet they’ll find connections to Ayers if they dig deep enough. I will note that she had ties to the Teamsters and Hotel Workers Union in the 70’s, and everyone knows that the unions were in bed with the Weather Underground.
Either that, or she was drugged and convinced with hypnosis that she had seen the original paper birth certificate.
Right?
@jwest,
The question of whether a person could, if he were to launch a massive-enough lawsuit over the course of however many years, get a copy of their long-form birth certificate is besides the point. Certainly Obama is not under any obligation to do so.
He asked for the standard COLB just like everyone else and got it. If that’s not “good enough” for someone, then frankly it’s their problem, not his. Nobody has offered any sort of reason why anything else would be the case.
jwest has long since been told what he thinks. I suggest we leave him to wallow in it.
The Birthers would just change tactics even if the long-form birth certificate was released. The dumber ones would say that it was forged by a conspiracy, blah, blah, blah. The “smarter” ones would drop the whole “born in Kenya” tangent, and start trying to claim that “Barry Soetero” is actually a citizen of Indonesia because of his stepfather, etc.
jwest — Please answer this question: Why should any sane person waste his or her time answering one of your idiot hypothetical questions?
Andyman,
There is that possibility that if the President of the United States requested that his own long form birth certificate be copied and released in order to clear up controversy of a Constitutional question, the democrat officials of the State of Hawaii would refuse on “bureaucratic?” grounds.
I suspect there are people who would step up to offer the legal help he would need to get the Hawaiian policy reversed, whether it be a “massive”, “years” long lawsuit or a five minute call to a reasonably sober judge.
Wr,
Weren’t you one of those people insisting that Hawaii didn’t have a long form or that they destroyed it years ago when things were digitized?
Please just admit it so I don’t have to search back for the answer.
jwest,
You Birthers are ridiculous. You reject the only document Hawaii provides when a birth certificate is requested and instead demand something that is impossible to produce.
It’s a sad commentary on this country that this President, unlike any candidate in history, had to release his birth certificate to the world, on the internet. It’s sadder still that doing so wasn’t enough for these idiots who view everything the President does through a lens clouded by suspicion and warped with prejudice.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
jwest — If the answer is so important or your time so valueless to you that you would search for such a thing, I’m certainly not going to stop you.
jwest:
Please give a response to this question
All the questions you’re asking have already been answered on prior threads. In particular, I call your attention to this:
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/poll-majority-of-gop-primary-voters-dont-believe-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s/#comment-1369610
The one who is running away from a challenge is you. You made a false claim, and you refused to retract that false claim. Until you do so, it’s hard to understand why you expect anyone to take you seriously.
jwest:
if the same set of rules and circumstances existed in your state and a client wanted a photocopy of his original birth certificate … if the President of the United States requested that his own long form birth certificate be copied and released in order to clear up controversy
That “photocopy” is magically going to “clear up controversy?” Really?
It would be foolish to expect the nuts to be satisfied by this. The release of that document would be followed by a series of questions about its authenticity, and there would be further demands for officials to jump through further hoops to respond to those questions.
The Hawaii DOH (Department of Health) has already said that Obama’s COLB is authentic. There is no reason to demand anything further unless those officials are considered untrustworthy. But if they are considered untrustworthy, why trust them to release something other than a forgery? If the birthers don’t trust DOH to make an honest statement, why should we expect them to trust DOH to release a genuine document?
This process doesn’t end. Nuts don’t suddenly turn into non-nuts because one more document gets released.
These are questions I raised on a prior thread. You ducked them there, so I’m sure you will continue to duck them.
Also recall that Fukino made her original statement while working for an R governor. Nevertheless, you still don’t trust what she said. If the “photocopy” was released tomorrow, that would be done by a D governor. So you are saying that you don’t trust the statement issued by the R administration, but you would trust a “photocopy” released by a D administration? Really? How does that make sense?
@jwest,
Again, it might be difficult, or it might not be. But the question remains: it would be a non-zero amount of effort, so why should he undertake it?
He’s already provided the COLB. That’s all that’s required. The mantra of “all he’d have to do is produce the birth certificate and this would all go away…” completely misses the essential point. Obama is under no obligation, whatsoever, under any interpretation of the law or anything, to satisfy the doubters. So why should he?
He’s already provided the COLB. That’s all that’s required.
For other candidates and presidents, not even that much was required. No other recent major-party candidate or president has done even that much. (Aside from Trump and Obama, I know of no candidate or president, ever, who has released a birth certificate prior to leaving office.)
This simple fact is worth emphasizing, because birthers often make false statements contrary to this. For example, Trump himself said this:
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/donaldtrump-birthcertificate-newsmax/2011/03/28/id/390930
That’s false. We have still not seen birth certificates for Bush I or Bush II. And Reagan’s was ultimately made public, but not until after he left office.
And here’s the funny thing about Reagan’s birth certificate. It can be seen here:
http://terryfrank.net/?p=4004
http://www.safeguardourconstitution.com/news/reagans-birth-certificate.html
http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2011/02/ronald-reagans-birth-certificate.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ag4U35aNZII/TU3K6qGaRgI/AAAAAAAAGOg/tGvtprphRG0/s1600/
rrbc.jpg
Those are all righty bloggers bragging about how wonderful it is that we can see Reagan’s birth certificate. So what’s the funny part? None of them seem to notice or care about the text that can be seen in the lower-left corner:
Reagan left the White House on 1/20/89. On 11/4/91, his presidential library opened. These bloggers are displaying a photo of a document that is on the wall in Reagan’s presidential library. The DATE ISSUED obviously indicates that this copy was created in connection with the planning for his library, after he had already left office.
So when is someone going to prove that Reagan ever showed his birth certificate before he left office? And which other president or candidate ever did that?
So what did Ms. Fukino say was the name of the doctor on the long-form birth certificate she saw?
Dr. Spock, of course.
Fukino is a pathological liar. This is the THIRD inconsistent statement she’s made about what document she allegedly saw, and the first time she’s said it was the long form. She used to maintain there was no such thing as a long form. Interesting she didn’t pipe up to MSLSD when Governor Abercrombie said he couldn’t find anything but a “written down” notation somewhere.
Is Fukino a lawyer? Didn’t think so. Doesn’t stop her from babbling line an ignoramus about what Hawaii law permits. And what nonsense. The Nordyke twins (Google ’em!) got copies of their long form certificates. Fukino’s just making stuff up so the MSM can continue to make excuses why Obama “can’t” release the certificate. The very certificate he said he had a copy about in his “Dreams” autobiography.
I’m pretty sure there’s no evidence that seeing a birth certificate, long or short or whatever, cures insanity.
Okay, fine, then what’s the name of the doctor on the long-form birth certificate she CLAIMS she saw? This isn’t England, we don’t have an Official Secrets Act in this country. Even if it’s against the law to release the certificate, she’s certainly free to talk about what she saw.
Northeast:
This is the THIRD inconsistent statement she’s made about what document she allegedly saw
No, she hasn’t made inconsistent statements. What she’s saying now is consistent with what she said before. When are you going to show us the statements that are allegedly inconsisent? You are a typical birther: making claims while not bothering to lift a finger to back them with proof.
and the first time she’s said it was the long form.
And she still hasn’t “said it was the long form.” Isikoff’s article is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951
Nowhere in that article is she quoted using that term. Although, as before, she’s obviously talking about the document that is often described as “the long form.”
She used to maintain there was no such thing as a long form.
No, Fukino never said that. You might be thinking of Okubo, who said this:
Asked for more information about the short-form versus long-form birth documents, Okubo said the Health Department “does not have a short-form or long-form certificate.”
http://archives.starbulletin.com/content/20090606_kokua_line
In context, you can see that what Okubo means is that only one form is currently issued. Okubo is not saying that there’s no original document on file. Okubo never said that, and Fukino never said that.
Interesting she didn’t pipe up to MSLSD when Governor Abercrombie said he couldn’t find anything but a “written down” notation somewhere.
What Abercrombie said is the same thing Fukino said:
(Abercrombie said there is a recording of the birth in the State Archives and he wants to use that.) It was actually written I am told, this is what our investigation is showing, it actually exists in the archives, written down …
http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20110118_This_is_a_collaborative_endeavor.html
He wasn’t describing a “notation somewhere.” He was describing the same document that Fukino has now described, several times.
Is Fukino a lawyer? Didn’t think so. Doesn’t stop her from babbling line an ignoramus about what Hawaii law permits.
The babbling ignoramus is you. Isikoff doesn’t cite Fukino saying anything “about what Hawaii law permits.” Isikoff cites Wisch discussing the law. Wisch is “the spokesman for the attorney general’s office.” I think it’s reasonable to assume that he actually knows something “about what Hawaii law permits.”
The Nordyke twins (Google ‘em!) got copies of their long form certificates.
Yes, they did. And when did that happen? Roughly 50 years ago. Yes, HI used to issue “long form certificates.” Trouble is, they stopped doing that decades ago. Here’s something the birthers have been unable to do: show a single example of anyone getting a ”long form” certificate in recent decades. That’s why the best they can do is keep babbling about the Nordykes. Even though the Nordyke are just an example of someone who got it a long time ago and simply managed to not ever lose it.
Read more about the Nordyke twins:
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105347
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
Those documents were apparently issued fifty years ago. Here’s one clue that these documents were not issued recently: they are “photostats.” Anyone seen a photostat machine lately? Xerox put them out of business when the Nordykes were tots.
The very certificate he said he had a copy about in his “Dreams” autobiography.
Yes, in that book, Obama says this:
I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school
All that tells us is that when he was in high school, he had in his possession some kind of birth certificate. Let’s say this was the ‘long form,’ or some kind of copy of it. So what? Who cares? How does this matter? It’s not surprising if thirty years later it’s no longer in his possession.
Thanks for doing such a nice job of packing so much birther nonsense into one short comment.
LGuapo:
Even if it’s against the law to release the certificate, she’s certainly free to talk about what she saw.
You are “certainly free” to make s**t up. No, she is not “free to talk about what she saw.” The statute is here:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm
The law is strict about who is entitled to get information from your birth records, and when it is proper “to disclose information contained in vital statistics records.” She is not “free to talk about” random facts on that record simply because you think it would be fun to know the name of the doctor.
An interesting side note: I needed a copy of my kids birth certificate. They were born in Maryland (I may have said NY in a comment before. My wife was born in NY and we moved there immediately after my second child was born. But they were born in MD. Of course, no real parent could possibly mis-remember their child’s birth place, so this is prima facie evidence I am a liar and these are not my children. And Ayers wrote my autobiography. Dang.) The Maryland certificates? Not called “Birth Certificates”. No delivering doctor. No little feety-prints. Has mine and my wife’s place of birth though (not sure why), but it’s there. Does have a seal, and a stamped official signature.
Yeah, I see what you mean, though there’s no criminal penalty mentioned. An employee might be fired but it’s hard to see they could do much to an ex-employee. And Section (d) says “Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and SUCH OTHER DATA AS THE DIRECTOR MAY AUTHORIZE shall be made available to the public,” (my emphasis), which makes it sound pretty arbitrary. Different bureaucrat, different data is okay, see what I mean? How about index by delivering physician? But I’m no lawyer; if you are, maybe you know different. Of course, anybody who works there could always float it to Wikileaks anonymously.
This is HogWash!!!
A lady name Miki Booth has obtained the Long-Form Birth Certificate (Certificate of Live Birth). It is dated March 15, 2011 and is stamped by Alvin Onaka the State Register.
Hawaii is LYING!
LGuapo:
An employee might be fired but it’s hard to see they could do much to an ex-employee.
So Fukino should break the law because LGuapo thinks “it’s hard to see they could do much to an ex-employee?” Here’s a possibility: Fukino is an old-fashioned Republican, which means that she has respect for the law, unlike you.
Index data consisting of name and sex of the registrant, type of vital event, and SUCH OTHER DATA AS THE DIRECTOR MAY AUTHORIZE shall be made available to the public
HI has issued a statement explaining what that means:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
which makes it sound pretty arbitrary. Different bureaucrat, different data is okay, see what I mean?
What you mean is this: that the people in charge should invent special new rules and procedures in order to meet the demands of a bunch of nuts who are going to remain nuts no matter what.
James:
A lady name Miki Booth
I think you’re talking about something that can be seen here:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspiracy-theories/162416-trump-i-have-investigators-in-hawaii-they-cannot-believe-what-theyre-finding-10.html#post3507256
I can’t figure out what that is, where it came from, or why it should be viewed as authentic. Whose birth certificate is that? Why is the name of the person redacted?
Jukebox,
I’m a lawyer, you’re not, so shut your silly mouth.
Under your theory, Fukino shouldn’t being saying anything. Not that the document has a signature. Not that it’s half-typewritten. NOTHING. The statute certainly doesn’t authorize her to selec
Jukebox,
I’m a lawyer, you’re not, so shut your silly mouth.
Under your theory, Fukino shouldn’t being saying anything. Not that the document has a signature. Not that it’s half-typewritten. NOTHING. The statute certainly doesn’t authorize her to selectively release information to take sides in a partisan dispute.
I am not a lawyer. How might the updated HIPPA laws influence the public identification of Obama’s natal doctor?
I’m a lawyer, you’re not, so shut your silly mouth.
Stellar argument, counselor!
Mantis,
Indeed, my “shut up” argument is stellar! Every state has laws to prevent ignoramuses like jukebox from spouting legal opinions without proper training. Indeed, jukebox could be arrested for offering his legal advice on this blog. It’s illegal! You know, in the same way that releasing Obama’s 1961 BC would be “illegal.”
Go back and read jukebox’ amateurish attempt at refutation. Be careful to read the links he supplied. What a weasel!
American courts often use reasonableness as a standard in interpreting the law. So, for example, although the Hawaii rule lists ‘a person having a common ancestor with the registrant’ among those who have ‘a direct and tangible interest’ in a record, it’s unlikely that would be held to include, say, an eighth cousin twice removed. Indeed, by the standard of the so-called Mitochondrial Eve, we all have a common ancestor. My point is that clearly there’s a privacy concern behind Hawaii’s policy, but what is a reasonable expectation of privacy for an American president? Certainly it can’t be the same as for some neverwasbeen like me or you. The President of the U.S. lives under a microscope 24/7 and is arguably the most public figure in the world. An example is that the sexual excursions of Presidents from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton are public fare. Moreover, Obama himself may be said to have opened the door on this issue by his autobiographical writings and public statements. So it’s hard to reasonably argue that he has some residual expectation of privacy here that counterbalances the anxiety of millions of Americans about the circumstances of his birth.
northeast:
You have no idea whether or not I’m a lawyer. But thanks for doing such a nice job of letting us know that you like to pretend to know things you don’t actually know.
I’ll be waiting patiently while you identify exactly what I said that is “legal advice,” and while you specify exactly what statute I violated that makes me subject to arrest.
Nothing I stated is a “theory.” And the law doesn’t say she “shouldn’t being saying anything.” By law, certain information can be released. HI explains this here:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
I already cited that document. You’re doing a nice job of proving that you’re not paying attention.
That’s funny. It’s obviously something you haven’t done yourself.
Wow, that’s rich. If she refused to say anything, the birthers would say that she’s stonewalling in order to protect Obama. But she did say something, so you claim she has decided “to selectively release information to take sides in a partisan dispute.” Except that she hasn’t done anything to “take sides.” She’s simply saying what the law allows her to say.
And you’re doing a nice job of proving that the birthers are always going to be able to find something to complain about, no matter what the HI officials decide to do or not do.
Except that you’ve shown no evidence that anything I said is “amateurish.”
And I’m still waiting for you to explain why you said this:
Where is your evidence to support that accusation? And there are plenty of other problems with your earlier comment. I showed that it was packed with nonsense. It’s helpful to notice that you have no actual response, and that you think “shut up” and “what a weasel” are a substitute for saying something substantive. I’m sure those remarks work well for you in court.
LGuapo:
You need to help me find the part of the HI statute which says that the law doesn’t apply if the person is the president. Or the part where it says anything whatsoever about “a reasonable expectation of privacy.” Here’s an idea: deal with what the law actually says, and not your fantasy of what it could say or should say.
Those “millions of Americans” should explain why they never demanded or received a birth certificate from any prior president (with the possible exception of Reagan, who presented his only after leaving office).
By the way, for some strange reason WSJ said this:
http://on.wsj.com/1zABul
Those “millions of Americans” should explain how Obama managed to make WSJ part of his conspiracy. According to WSJ, Obama has already done more than any other president. But for you, somehow that still isn’t enough. And I notice that none of you want to answer the questions I asked at 4/10 19:11.
By the way, do you realize that Romney’s daddy was born in Mexico? Are you sure that Mitt is not part of the Chicano conspiracy to subvert America? Have you personally inspected all the papers?
Well, as I say, we all have ‘a common ancestor,’ so if you insist on text-only, that moots your argument. In point of fact, laws are interpreted by the courts, and in striking a balance between competing needs reasonableness is often invoked.
I’ve described many reasons why the birther perspective fails any reasonable test of “reasonableness,” so the idea of “reasonableness” being “invoked” by a birther is hysterically funny.
Forget republicans. What you need to worry about is the 11% of democrats and the 23% of independents that think its “reasonable” to ask why Obama won’t release the birth certificate. He should bite the bullet, get the bad news out of the way and start trying to convince most people that he’s not Muslim.
With the economic recover picking up steam, conservatives are getting increasing desperate for talking points. Apparently, fantasies are all they have to work with. As has been noted above, even Murdoch’s WSJ says Obama has done far more than any other president to confirm the circumstances of his birth.
Some news on the economy. It’s good news for the country, so the jwest and jay tea types will be furious:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704843404576250790550550886.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Anjin-san,
Although the WSJ is ready to break out the champagne, I doubt the majority of voters will be celebrating the 8.5% unemployment (actually about 15%) and $4 gas prices, along with rising food costs, static or falling home values and trillion dollar deficits.
Take a moment and go through the electoral votes. What states do you think Obama has a chance of winning?
Jukebox,
Good try, dimwit.
I know you’re not a lawyer because you claim that I “have no idea” whether you’re a lawyer, rather than simply asserting that you ARE a lawyer. It’s called deductive reasoning. We lawyers are good at it.
You haven’t cited any Hawaii statute that prohibits anyone with a “tangible interest” in a vital record from getting a copy of it. FAIL. The Hawaii Attorney General’s unsolicited weasel words aren’t a statute, or any form of law. Nor is anything the Governor says. Did you believe everything Sarah Palin said when she was governor?
You haven’t quoted a single statement from Fukino, other than her newest one, in which she claimed to have actually seen the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth. FAIL. Both of her prior statements, made in 2008 and 2009, are inconsistent for having failed to make that claim.
Abercromie quite clearly wasn’t talking about the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth, no matter how you try to spin his words. FAIL. The “recording in the state archives” was Obama’s name on the index. Don’t be silly. Again.
Right, it doesn’t matter that he had his long form certificate in high school, other than it proves that Hawaii did release them upon request to an interested person. Just like the Nordyke twins got theirs. The fact that he standard form that Hawaii releases is a short form certification is irrelevant to the question of what they’re permitted to, and have issued, upon request.
Wow, you are one dull crayon. Fell right into my little trap. Yes, you are so correct — offering your opinion about the law in a blog comment is not unlawful. The statutes prohibiting the practice of law without a license do not cover it. Just like the laws covering the release of vital records don’t prevent interested persons from getting copies.
And finally, yes, Fukino DID violate the laws you cited. The language at your link says:
“State law prohibits the DOH for disclosing any information about a Hawaii vital record unless the requestor has a direct and tangible interest in the record. This includes verification of vital records and all the information contained in a record. Vital records disclosure laws protect all birth, death, marriage and divorce records held by the department and all amendments, changes, supporting records, and requests related to vital records.”
Fukino clearly engaged in the “verification of records”, and her statements, including the latest, provided “information contained in the record.” Indeed, your whole thesis that Obama was born in Hawaii depends on that verification and information.
Do you practice time travel? Your claim that I’m not a lawyer preceded me telling you that you have no idea whether or not I’m a lawyer. And you still have no idea whether or not I’m a lawyer.
I hope you and your little straw man are having lots of fun together. I didn’t say that there is a “Hawaii statute that prohibits anyone with a ‘tangible interest’ in a vital record from getting a copy of it.” Why are you suggesting that I said something that I didn’t say?
True, they don’t. When did I say they did?
Maybe you’re confused because the statute gives DOH a lot of discretion with regard to what it means to provide a ‘copy:’
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
This is what Fukino said in 2008:
http://www.kitv.com/r/17860890/detail.html
She said “original birth certificate,” which obviously means “the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth.”
This is what Fukino said in 2009:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm
She said “original vital records,” which obviously means “the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth.”
This is what Fukino said in 2011:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42519951
This is what you said:
Still waiting for you demonstrate anything “inconsistent.”
Yes, that could be what Abercrombie meant. So what? Who cares? Abercrombie mentioning that index is not the same thing as Abercrombie saying there is nothing other than that index.
No, it doesn’t prove that. If he had it, it could be because he kept the original and never lost it. And even if “Hawaii did release them upon request to an interested person,” the key word in that sentence is “did.” That was then. This is now. Still waiting for you to show any evidence that anyone has been able to obtain a long form in recent decades.
The Nordyke twins presented photostats. Photostat machines became obsolete about 40 years ago. I already explained this. You’re doing a nice job of proving that you’re not paying attention.
What they “have issued” a long time ago is irrelevant. What’s relevant is what they release now, and what they have released in recent decades. Please demonstrate that in recent decades they “have issued, upon request” a long form.
This is what you said before:
Here’s an idea: pick one story and stick with it.
The language you’re citing isn’t from a statute, and you’re taking it out of context. By “any information” it obviously doesn’t mean absolutely any, because on the same page, it discusses how so-called “index data” may be disclosed:
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html
Dear Northeast Elizabeth –
PwNd.
Wow.
Seriously.
A Lawyer who is a birther.
Priceless.
Northeast Elizabeth sounds like one of my lawyers. He’s famous for wearing a Stetson and standing on a conference room table to piss in the opposing lawyer’s briefcase.
I like her.
Heh. No, no, reasonableness isn’t invoked by the birthers. It’s invoked by the court in balancing Obama’s expectation of privacy against the expectations of a large number of Americans regarding the constitutional legitimacy of their President. You seem to feel their concerns are unwarranted and, from what you say, there are some folks at the Wall Street Journal who agree with you.
You seem to feel their concerns are unwarranted
Actually, their “concerns” have been proven groundless. Long ago.
Then why are they still concerned?
Then why are they still concerned?
They are either extreme partisans who see the birther angle as advantageous, or more likely, they are crazy idiots whose brains are impervious to reality.
Reminds me of the joke about a man driving home from work, and his wife calls him on his cell to tell him to be careful because she just heard on the radio that there’s a maniac driving the wrong way on the freeway. “ONE maniac?” he expostulates. “They’re ALL driving the wrong way!!”
Mantis,
The advantage is that there are millions in the squishy middle who don’t follow politics, only read headlines and couldn’t find their ass with both hands.
People like Biff and Muffy, college educated but non-political in a real sense. They recycle, think global warming is real and thought it would be nice and historic for the country to have its first black president. That was before when they thought he was an American. They’ve agreed between themselves to vote for the next black who runs for president, regardless of party – just so long as he’s not a Muslim.
Well, you’re funny, jwest; I’ll give you that. Unintentionally so, of course, but still…
Jukebox,
We now agree on the following:
(1) You’re not a lawyer. If you disagree, cut and paste the following sentence into your next answer: “I am a lawyer.”
(2) Obama could request and get a full copy of the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth under Hawaii law (see HRS 338-13, 338-18). No doubt how the Nordyke twins and everyone since 1961 has gotten it. The law hasn’t changed since then. The statute also answers your silliness about the scope of “information” a non-applicant can disclose. And yes, you repeatedly expressed your belief that Hawaii doesn’t permit an interested person to get a full copy of his original birth certificate. If you now DON”T believe that, cut and paste the following sentence into your next answer: “President Obama is prohibited by Hawaii law from making a copy of his original 1961 birth certificate.”
(3) Only in Fukino’s latest statement does she specifically and unambiguously say that she saw the original 1961 certificate (in the prior statements she claimed she saw that it was “on record” or that she saw “vital records”). If you disagree, cut and paste the following sentence into your next answer: “Fukino has said specifically and unambiguously three times that she saw the original 1961 birth certificate, not merely that she saw that it was maintained “on record” or that she has seen unidentified ‘vital records.'”
LGuapo:
I hope you’re having fun with your imaginary court interpreting an imaginary statute. Back here on Earth, the relevant HI statute says nothing about “Obama’s expectation of privacy.”
Then again, I suppose you’re one of those conservatives who thinks (but only when it’s politically convenient to do so) that laws made by lawmakers don’t matter, and that judges should make up their own laws.
I see that no one wants to explain why none of those Americans raised questions about “constitutional legitimacy” when this many of our recent presidents presented their birth certificate before taking office: zero.
Why do some people think Africa is a country?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5095495.ece
Why are some people stupid?
Northeast:
You’ve already proven that you like to pretend to know things that you don’t actually know. You don’t need to keep proving it over and over again.
I’m not sure where you got the wacky idea that I’m obligated to tell you things about my identity that I don’t want you to know. Then again, you’ve got lots of other wacky ideas, too.
I already cited the relevant section, but I guess I have to spoonfeed you the text:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2008/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0013.htm
You’ll notice that it doesn’t say anything about “a full copy” (whatever that’s supposed to mean, since you haven’t defined it). The law does define what it means by “copies:” that means any “process approved by the director of health.” Which means that a “computer printout” which contains the “contents of any certificate on file in the department” is considered a “copy.” And that “copy” is “considered for all purposes the same as the original.” Guess what we have just described: the COLB that Obama has presented publicly.
By law, that “certified copy” is “considered for all purposes the same as the original.” So here’s what you’re doing when you claim it’s not good enough: you’re ignoring the law. Just like you’re ignoring the law when you claim that Obama can get “a full copy” (whatever that means).
Presumably by “a full copy” you mean “photocopy.” Trouble is, the law says explicitly that DOH has the discretion to use any “process approved by the director of health,” and it can be a “computer printout” rather than a “photocopy.” So what you are claiming the law says is exactly contrary to what the law actually says.
The Nordyke twins possess “photostats:”
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=105347
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Jul/28/ln/hawaii907280345.html
When do you think HI stopped using photostats? I realize you’re going to pretend to not notice that I’ve already explained this.
And who is the “everyone?” If there is someone else you can cite, how come the only name you have mentioned is theirs?
Really? Where exactly did she say that? Please cite her exact words, in full.
That’s the plain meaning of what she said on all three occasions, but you’re making a fuss about “specifically and unambiguously,” so you should show us the exact words you consider so important.
This is what she said in 2008:
She said she has “personally seen … Obama’s original birth certificate.” That’s different from saying “she saw the original 1961 certificate?” Really? On what planet? This is what you said earlier:
Still waiting for you to explain how “personally seen … Obama’s original birth certificate” is “inconsisent” with “she saw the original 1961 certificate.”
jwest, for some strange reason you are refusing to retract the false claim that I pointed out here:
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/poll-majority-of-gop-primary-voters-dont-believe-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s/#comment-1369610
It’s a pretty important claim, and for some strange reason you seem to be pretending to not notice that I’ve shown proof the claim is false. Is this your way of telling us that nothing you say should be taken seriously? That’s how it looks. Thanks for making it so clear.
And it should be noted that the false claim made by jwest is the same false claim made by Northeast Elizabeth.
In another thread, jwest said this:
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/poll-majority-of-gop-primary-voters-dont-believe-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s/#comment-1369324
In the current thread, Northeast Elizabeth said this:
Proof that this claim is false can be found via here:
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/poll-majority-of-gop-primary-voters-dont-believe-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s/#comment-1369352
But of course birthers are impervious to proof, and simply pretend not to notice when their claims are proven to be false, so we should expect to keep hearing this same false claim over and over again.
It the state only issues the COLB, then how do you explain this: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=285921
That article starts off by citing the Nordykes. Trouble is, the Nordykes don’t prove the claim that’s being made. I already explained why earlier in this thread. Multiple times.
Have you read this thread? Have you read what I said about the Nordykes? Do you understand what I said about the Nordykes? Do you have any basis to question or dispute what I said about the Nordykes?
The article you cited is packed with nothing but crap, and I can explain why in detail. For example, did you notice that the Nordykes are the only example shown where the name of the person isn’t hidden? If the information in the other examples is correct and verifiable, why are all the names hidden?
On the other hand, you seem to be ignoring what I already said about the Nordykes, which suggests that explaining any of this to you is a waste of time, and you’re just a troll. Speak up if you’d like to explain why that’s not the obvious conclusion I should reach about you.
Jukebox,
(1) I’ll declare victory on question of whether you’re a lawyer, given that you’re being as evasive and non-responsive as Obama and his minions regarding the birth certificate.
(2) As you indicated, the statute requires DOH “to furnish to any applicant a certified copy of any certificate, or the contents of any certificate, or any part thereof.” What part of “any part” don’t you understand? Does the word “any” somehow exclude the parts identifying the doctor and the hospital? To the contrary . . . it requires the DOH to produce a copy of EVERY part, including the FULL document, upon request. And how does the statute PROHIBIT, as Attorney General Wisch LIED, the DOH from providing an actual photocopy of the full document? It doesn’t.
(3) Still waiting for you to explain how “personally seen … Obama’s original birth certificate” is “inconsisent” with “she saw the original 1961 certificate.”
(a) Seeing that something is “on record” is different that seeing the thing itself. Guess you non-lawyers have difficultly grasping that. An index of birth certificates will show that they’re “on record” without saying anything about the documents themselves.
(b) And let’s look at what FactCheck says: “FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate.” Of course, they’re referring to the 2008 computer abstract, which is what they post. Fukino was just using the same dishonest dodge.
Your regular practice is to “declare” all sorts of things that have no basis outside your fantasy world, so there’s no reason for this to be any different.
No. Which means that if an applicant wanted to know “the doctor and the hospital,” DOH would tell them. Your problem is that DOH is free to tell them by making “copies of the contents,” and those copies can be be made by any “process approved by the director of health,” including simple “typing” or “computer printout.” And any such copy “of the contents of any certificate on file in the department, certified by the department shall be considered for all purposes the same as the original.” Which means that DOH is under no obligation to provide “an actual photocopy of the full document.”
Wisch is not the “Attorney General.” Your carelessness is rampant. And we don’t have a transcript of what Wisch said. Mostly what we have is a paraphrase by Isikoff. We know that Isikoff said “state law.” Wisch may have said “regulation,” not “law.”
I am citing this text now for the third time:
This time I have highlighted some words you have trouble seeing. “Seeing the thing itself” is the plain meaning of “have personally seen.” You are continuing to pretend that she didn’t say what she did indeed say.
And you claimed that now she said something different, except you have refused to cite her current words which are supposedly different. When are you going to do that?
That factcheck article is here:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
You are quoting them out of context. Yes, they are talking about the 2008 COLB, and they describe that as “the original birth certificate,” but they do so because they are responding to people (like Corsi) who claimed that the COLB image posted on the internet was a forgery. So their use of that term (“original birth certificate”) makes sense in context, and it has nothing to do with Fukino’s use of that term.
I’m going to remind you of the very first thing you said in this thread:
Where is your citation to show that “She used to maintain there was no such thing as a long form?”
You also said this:
Show us the text from her current statement where “she claimed to have actually seen the 1961 Certificate of Live Birth.” That’s the plain meaning of all her statements, and the way she said that in 2011 is no different than the way she said it before.
And you also said this:
Simple question: when exactly did “the Nordyke twins got theirs?”
You’ve been running from these questions all along, so I’m sure you’ll keep running.