Video: Hawaiian official corroborates Obama COLB … again

posted at 11:36 am on July 28, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

What does it say about the Birther issue when Fox News covers its debunking while CNN continues to stoke the controversy? Yesterday, Dr. Chiyome Fukino issued a second definitive statement that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, as his Certificate of Live Birth states, after having seen the records in the Department of Health for herself. A second Honolulu newspaper produced a birth announcement for Obama in August 1961 as well:

In an attempt to quash persistent rumors that President Obama was not born in Honolulu on Aug. 4, 1961, Hawaii’s health director reiterated this afternoon that she has personally seen Obama’s birth certificate in the Health Department’s archives.

“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii 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 Hawaii 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….”

On Oct. 31, Fukino originally tried to put an end to the belief among so-called “birthers” that Obama was not born in the United States and thus was ineligible to run for the office of president.

Last July, a Hillary Clinton supporter doing oppo research on Obama dug up a birth announcement in the Honolulu Advertiser from August 1961 that noted Obama’s birth in Hawaii. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin has also found one in its own archives from that month:

Theories that Obama was born abroad abounded during the presidential campaign, even after an official Hawaii birth certificate was produced, along with August 1961 birth notices from two Honolulu newspapers. Numerous lawsuits and emergency appeals were lodged challenging Obama’s eligibility to be president, and all were rebuffed.

People wonder why Obama doesn’t demand that Hawaii release the original records to put an end to the Birther nonsense. The biggest reason? It wouldn’t work. The same people who believe that Obama forged a Certificate of Live Birth twice corroborated by the state that issued it will insist that Obama got someone to forge any new records produced by Hawaii as well. It’s the same reason that having Palin produce her gynecological records won’t satisfy Andrew Sullivan and why producing the phone records from United 93 families to prove that they haven’t been in contact with the supposedly still-alive-but-hiding passengers on the 9/11 flight won’t change Truther minds. The conspiracy theorists have far too much invested in their argument to retreat.

Obama has a valid COLB attesting to his Hawaiian birth, two statements from the state Department of Health explicitly noting his birth in Honolulu, and not one but two contemporaneous reports of his birth there. He’s a natural-born American citizen. I realize that this evidence won’t convince the fringe true believers, but maybe it’s enough to get the rest of America to ignore them to the same extent we ignore the Truthers and the Trig Truthers. Hopefully that will be soon, so we can build conservative credibility to fight the real battles — ObamaCare, cap-and-tax, and other attempts to socialize the American economy.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 14 15 16

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM

You’re doing the Alinsky thing. All I’m asking is what word usage in the 14th Amendment leads legal experts to say that it ever applied to Blacks – who at the time were biological but not “legal” persons.

See, if you look at just the words there is nothing there that specifically mentions Blacks. Blacks are only included in the 14th Amendment if the word “person” applies to them.

How do we know if the word “person” applies to Blacks? The Roe court ruled that the word “person” meant “legal person” – in which case it never applied to Blacks.

Do you agree with that assessment?

My point: historical context makes a HUGE difference. When determining what the word “person” meant in the 14th Amendment, the Roe court should have asked how the meaning of “legal person” in the Amendment would have done anything to the legal position of Blacks, who were ruled in Dred Scott to be non-persons in the eyes of the Constitution.

So now we’ve got the 14th Amendment which only applies to “legal persons” and Blacks have never been declared to be legal persons. What’s the logical conclusion there, Buckeye? The same ruling that Obama says kicked fetuses off the 14th Amendment Equal Protection island also means that he, as a Black, was never even allowed ONTO the island.

It’s not me who made that crappy decision – which wasn’t based on historical context at all, but on wilfull defining of “person” on the part of the Roe court. It was the Roe court. And you might note that in their decision they say that there is no question that the word “person” refers to “legal person”. No ambiguity at all. But their ruling undoes 100 years of legal decisions if taken seriously.

So if you’re gonna say anybody went off the rails, it is them. Are you willing to say that?

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 3:43 PM

New_Jersey_Buckeye on July 29, 2009 at 3:26 PM:

Yet the majority opinion ruled that:

(1) blacks could not be citizens of the United States;

(2) slaves were property protected by the Constitution; and

(3) a state could decide for itself if someone formerly emancipated should revert to slavery within that state’s boundaries.

(from http://www.answers.com/topic/roger-b-taney)

Until the 14th Amendment, according to your diagram, that was the law of the land. Since it is a majority opinion, it should have more authority than a dissenting opinion from the same case, nyet?

You still have not responded to my critique of your interpretation of Justice Curtis’ dissenting opinion. If you will visit the links I have provided relative to the Founder’s own words re “frenchy” Vattel and “natural born citizen”, you will find that the Founders pro-actively defined “natural born citizen” as something different from “citizen”. Your diagram appears to start somewhere in the middle, rather than the beginning.

Got to run an errand. Lack of replies does not mean capitulation.

JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 3:52 PM

And Buckeye, you and I both know that the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to Blacks. This country engaged in a bloody civil war over that very thing. It’s obvious in the historical context.

That’s why I find it so mind-boggling that SCOTUS actually said that the word “person” meant “legal person”. If it applied only to “legal persons” then it would have done nothing to the Dred Scott decision.

So the only reason you say I’m going off the rails is because I’m acting as if the Roe court actually meant the excuses they gave. Everybody knows that’s not what the 14th Amendment meant. But nobody is willing to say what a stupid excuse the SCOTUS manufactured in order to make that decision.

Sure, argue about whether a fetus is a biological person or about states’ rights. But to say that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to all biological persons is to deny that it ever included Blacks. It is also Constitutional permission to call any human being a “legal non-person” and then the 14th Amendment won’t apply to them. Much like Nazi Germany.

It’s crazy. I share your “off the rails” sentiment. VERY sad day when a person who takes the SCOTUS definitions of Constitutional words seriously is immediately identified as following crazy ideas.

Historical context is imperative. That’s the case I’m making. To find out what the Founders meant by “natural born citizen” we have to look at the historical context, including their writings and the jurisprudence in place at the time.

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 4:06 PM

Ok, Deniers, 3 questions:

1) IF Obama’s previously released CertificaTION of live birth was in fact THE legal document required to verify his natural born status, then why has it not been submitted as evidence in any of the lawsuits filed against him?

2) Why the reversal of orders in Major Cook’s case, the first person “with standing” per the court system?

3) Does “Natural born citizen” mean having 2 parents who are US citizens?

Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 5:18 PM

OOPS, FOUR questions:
4) If in fact that is a valid COLB, why the Presidential Executive Order to hide all his documents signed the day after the inauguration?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderPresidentialRecords/

Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 5:21 PM

It’s not the crime, dearies, its the cover-up!

Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM

Yawwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn…

Again, no evidence…and apparently every judge who’s heard a challenge is in on it…

Black Yoshi on July 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Black Yoshi:

To bring a suit, one must have standing. If the court determines the plaintiff lacks standing, the trial never begins and no judgment is rendered on the merits.

A determination of lack of standing does not equal “no evidence”. Further, one can have evidence that is ultimately discounted, if there is a trial. In order to bring a trial, the plaintiff must have standing. Note that canceling Major Cook’s deployment orders may have deprived him of standing. Others have joined that suit who may have standing. We’ll have to see.

JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Um, no, NO judge has heard this birther case, because until Major Cook, noone had standing.

And the evidence in question won’t be released, why?

Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Well, califemme and justincase,

Have they made a tactical retreat, or have have we chased them from the field in disarray?

JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM

I’m in the middle of reading Shelby Foote’s terrific three volume narrative of the Civil War. It kind of rubs off on you.

JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 6:54 PM

Test

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 7:11 PM

It all of a sudden said I was not allowed to leave comments. Weird.

Anybody know anything about whether Obama’s half-brother requested a copy of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate and was told they’d give it to him in a year? It’s referenced at the link below and I’ve been trying to find more information if there is any and haven’t been able.

http://www.restoretheconstitutionalrepublic.com/libertytree/LibertyTree-08%5B1%5D.pdf

justincase on July 29, 2009 at 7:13 PM

Glynn Custred, DOCUMENTER!

From NRO’s The Corner: Nixonian Secrecy

http://tinyurl.com/l8txgb

JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Well, califemme and justincase,

Have they made a tactical retreat, or have have we chased them from the field in disarray?

JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Noone even bothers answering my questions, so I guess that means I’m a dum dum or something.

I think its a VERY important distinction… Natural born vs Naturalized. I am naturalized and had to hear from my dad that I couldn’t be President because I’m naturalized. I’ve known the difference since I was 8. Of course, this from the same man who always used to say “You can become an American, but you gotta be born Texan!”

Thanks Pop. So, I feel that this is very personal to me, since I can’t be President, I’d like to make sure the Usurper is legally eligible to be President.

Not so much to ask, no?

Califemme on July 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM

Not to much to ask, no, Califemme.

I think it’s that the thread is about done. Seems to me I carried forward one of your questions / arguments, but I could be mistaken.

Don’t give up. I intend to continue to press hard on every obfuscation in President Training-Pants’ past and I hope you will too. It was great to see you jumping in. If Lou Dobbs and The Corner are talking about it, and Gibbs had to dive in (what terrible strategy, to give notice to something you just want to go away), we’re gaining ground. I have tried to coin a new term (DOCUMENTERS), to point out it’s the secrecy itself that is insulting. I have no idea where Obungle was born – THAT’S THE POINT! We’re not serfs, nor subjects – we’re citizens of the greatest republic that ever was. And Obummer is not the king. Like Joe Friday, I want just the facts, ma’am.

JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 10:01 PM

Don’t give up. I intend to continue to press hard on every obfuscation in President Training-Pants’ past and I hope you will too.

You’re better off focusing on the present obfuscations. Those are the ones that will prevent His reelection.

and Gibbs had to dive in (what terrible strategy, to give notice to something you just want to go away), we’re gaining ground.

They don’t want it to go away. They’d much rather have you digging around in the basement than watching what they’re doing. You’re not gaining any ground. You’re wasting your time and credibility.

Pablo on July 29, 2009 at 10:47 PM

He made some comment a few weeks ago about not liking so many Micheal Jackson threads, and was poking fun at Ed about it, and I think he got sent to the corn field.

Tav on July 29, 2009 at 12:56 AM

Are you sure? Can you provide a link by any chance, or do you remember the topic or a phrase or anything that I can search on?

FloatingRock on July 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM

Has any Birther invalidated Obama’s certificate of live birth yet, or perhaps proved that the Hawaiian state officials who attested to its validity and to Obama’s citizenship?No?

Good Lt on July 29, 2009 at 7:56 AM

How could we since he hasn’t released his CERTIFICATE of Live Birth. You link to the CERTIFICATION of Live Birth.

I realize there is just a difference of a couple of letters there, but those different letters mean they are talking about different documents.

I know this issue is a little tough for some of you to wrap your little pea brains around – so maybe those of you who lack the mental capacity to understand the topc should just be quiet and let the Big Boys handle this one mmmmmmmkay?

Mr Purple on July 30, 2009 at 3:16 AM

Are you sure? Can you provide a link by any chance, or do you remember the topic or a phrase or anything that I can search on?

FloatingRock on July 30, 2009 at 12:00 AM

It happened in this thread. Read the first two pages of comments. Ed didn’t come right out and say MB4 was banned, but the implication was there and he hasn’t been seen since.

backwoods conservative on July 30, 2009 at 4:05 AM

Mr Purple:

Folks like Pablo apparently have a problem with taking the time to understand an issue, like the facts that

1. There are two different formats and provenances for Hawaiian birth certificates.

2. Sun Yat Sen, obviously born in China, obtained the “short form” COLB, the same document we may or may not have seen on a web site.

3. “Natural Born Citizen” is not the same thing as “citizen”, it means both parents were citizens.

Birth certificate or not, the third point, assuming that Barack Obama Sr. was in fact Obama’s father, disqualifies Obama from office.

But the only thing to do when the facts aren’t on your side is pound the table and ridicule your opponents.

JackOkie on July 30, 2009 at 6:19 AM

Have they made a tactical retreat, or have have we chased them from the field in disarray?

JackOkie on July 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM

No, but since you decline to heed our advice in regards to the futility of you efforts… you may commence your charge General Pickett…

elgeneralisimo on July 30, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Birth certificate or not, the third point, assuming that Barack Obama Sr. was in fact Obama’s father, disqualifies Obama from office.

According to your esteemed, erudite legal opinion, despite SCOTUS having declined to hear that very issue. And your plan to evict him is what, exactly? Pound on the table? That appears to be all you’ve got. Would you like to borrow a shoe?

Pablo on July 30, 2009 at 9:13 AM

I know this issue is a little tough for some of you to wrap your little pea brains around – so maybe those of you who lack the mental capacity to understand the topc should just be quiet and let the Big Boys handle this one mmmmmmmkay?

Now that’s funny. Look out y’all! We’ve got F. Lee Bailey and Perry Mason on the case.

Pablo on July 30, 2009 at 9:14 AM

There’s a good article on how birth certificates could be obtained in Hawaii in 1961 at

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105371

Basically shows that fraudulent claims could easily be on the public record, and without saying what documents she looked at or how they were filed nobody can know whether the methods for obtaining a fraudulent certificate were utilized.

Especially given that neither Obama nor his half-sister can tell a consistent story about what hospital he was born at, it seems like maybe his birth was registered as not having happened at a hospital – which would mean that the account of Ann or of Grandma would have been taken at face value with no corroborating evidence.

If so, then either Ann had her first-born child outside of a hospital in Hawaii or she had her first-born child in a hospital somewhere else and lied to Hawaii in order to have him be a US citizen.

I suppose a person would have a baby outside of a hospital even where hospitals were available if they had a very short labor and couldn’t get to the hospital. Any time I’ve heard of that happening, though, it becomes an even bigger story to the mother and child than if the birth had happened in a hospital. We had a gal in our church in Minnesota who had her baby at home because her labor was so fast. Anybody in the (small) town could tell you about it – and certainly her aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, neighbors, etc even if they didn’t live in the town.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 11:33 AM

My sister had 5 of her 7 kids at home on purpose. Not the first one even though she liked the idea of having a midwife and having the child at home, because on a first birth you don’t know what your particular medical vulnerabilities might be. And that’s in the 80′s, not 1961. In 1961 the routine for having children was for the mother to stay in a hospital bed for a week after the birth.

Yet Ann and Barack were in Seattle at the end of August, 1961 – alone, without Ann’s parents or husband.

Strange.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Especially given that neither Obama nor his half-sister can tell a consistent story about what hospital he was born at, it seems like maybe his birth was registered as not having happened at a hospital – which would mean that the account of Ann or of Grandma would have been taken at face value with no corroborating evidence.

Yeah, I remember my birth in great detail, almost as well as I remember my older brother’s.

Now, even if it were issued upon affidavit, those who gave the affidavits are dead and therefore unimpeachable. Which means those affidavits stand as evidence, and the fact of his Hawaiian birth legally remains. Which brings you right back where you started: empty handed.

Some good advice for you.

Pablo on July 30, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Pablo on July 30, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Noone’s asking you to believe, we are only asking to be ABLE TO ASK the questions; we’d like answers to those questions, but we don’t need/want YOUR answers to those questions.

Califemme on July 30, 2009 at 12:22 PM

You can ask all you like. It’s a free country. And there’s a very willing media, more than happy to note that you have questions. And a WH press secretary more than happy to mock you. Axelrod is pleased.

But the thing is, it’s not just about asking questions. It’s DEMANDING THESE DOCUMENTS THAT WE ALL HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INDIVIDUALLY EXPECT BECAUSE…WELL, JUST BECAUSE, THAT’S WHY!!!

It’s kinda kooky.

Pablo on July 30, 2009 at 12:29 PM

Oooooh.

If somebody’s dead then anything they said in an affidavit is “unimpeachable”? Can’t be refuted by living witnesses or legal documents showing the dead person’s affidavit wrong?

Good thing Granny Dunham is dead, eh?

Turns out that sometime between June 10th and 18th Hawaii started printing up the same info as is on a COLB but titled it “CertifiCATE of Live Birth”. They also began to refuse to print certified copies of original long-form birth certificates.

Interesting timing. June 10th is when the judge in Kerchner v Obama extended time to the defendants because he said they would need competent legal counsel. Why all of a sudden did Hawaii change the titles of their documents and their procedures for what they will and won’t do?

Any ideas, anybody?

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM

I don’t want these posts to get lost when that thread isn’t put on the Best Picks side. More info regarding why Fukino’s statement means nothing can be found at this and the following posts:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/29/video-americas-most-famous-birther-appears-on-colbert-for-ritual-mockery/comment-page-4/#comment-2498796

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:05 PM

But the only thing to do when the facts aren’t on your side is pound the table and ridicule your opponents.

JackOkie on July 30, 2009 at 6:19 AM

Or make up things like you did…
What ruling are you referring to about Obama not being eligible?
There are not “two different formats”.
The COLB was the only format issued for birth in Hawaii, it has been like that for over 50 years. No exception.

Sun Yat Sen was born in 1866, Hawaii explicitly has stated that they have all the records stored from 1909. They don’t “guarantee” anything before that.
Please, stay off the crazy birther sites…you are known by the company you keep.

right2bright on July 30, 2009 at 2:06 PM

Hawaii change the titles of their documents and their procedures for what they will and won’t do?

Any ideas, anybody?

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM

ummmmmm….maybe to standardize, and streamline? Maybe to show once and for all that a COLB is actually a Birth Certificate, that the wording was confusing, but now it is clear and apparent. A COLB is a birth certificate…

right2bright on July 30, 2009 at 2:09 PM

Right2bright, up until at least June 10th Hawaii gave out directions for how a person could get a certified copy of their original long-form birth certificate – which was necessary because the COLB didn’t include all the information needed to verify some things, like whether one was actually born in Hawaii.

Now, according to a former CIA investigator who was hired to look into the laws regarding birth records in Hawaii, when they print out a document just like the COLB Obama posted they call it a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth. That began sometime between June 10-18. So you need to update your argument.

It would also be interesting to hear your explanation of why they made that change (as well as refusing to make certified copies of original long-form birth certificates) within one week of the judge in Kerchner v Obama telling Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi to get good legal counsel because they were gonna need it.

If you follow the link I gave a couple posts earlier you’ll get to some posts where I explain that Fukino can say she looked at an original birth certificate and followed the law in saying she determined him to be natural-born, even if she doesn’t look at the separate file containing the only documentation of the birth.

If it was a late registration by either Ann or Madelyn it would explain almost everything that’s happened up to this point – including why Obama is hiding this and how the Hawaii officials can make these official statements without outright lying.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:18 PM

right2bright on July 30, 2009 at 2:09 PM

All that change does is make it so a “birth certificate” contains no actual documentation of its own accuracy.

And why refuse to print copies of the originals? They’ve got them on microfiche. And those documents (together with associated permanent files holding the evidence given for late registrations) are the only documents with information able to be independently verified. IOW, those are the only safeguards against fraud. Why get rid of that?

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:21 PM

I have to get some work done after spending a lot of time digging through the new information this morning. If I don’t respond in a while it’s not because I’m conceding anything.

justincase on July 30, 2009 at 2:23 PM

If somebody’s dead then anything they said in an affidavit is “unimpeachable”? Can’t be refuted by living witnesses or legal documents showing the dead person’s affidavit wrong?

That is the legal term. If you had actual evidence that contradicted them, you would likely be able to offer it. But barring that, the facts asserted in the affaidavit would be considered fact.

If it was a late registration by either Ann or Madelyn it would explain almost everything that’s happened up to this point – including why Obama is hiding this and how the Hawaii officials can make these official statements without outright lying.

Is 4 days after the birth “late”? Because that’s when the COLB says it was filed by the registrar. But just go ahead and ignore that. The BC doesn’t matter anyway, except for hwen it does. Because he’s still not a natural born citizen, even if he was born in Hawaii, which he definitely wasn’t because THERE ARE QUESTIONS!!!

Good grief.

Pablo on July 30, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Pablo on July 30, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Obama has admitted his father’s lineage and citizenship which automatically makes him ineligible.

I’ve known since I was 8 that a naturalized citizen (like me, one American parent and one foreign born) can NOT be POTUS, and that is the point we’re trying to make.

Califemme on July 30, 2009 at 3:51 PM

So piss off! Specifically – Pablo, Black Yoshi, right2bright, etc..

Califemme on July 30, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 14 15 16