AP Headline from 2004? "Kenyan-born Obama"

reply to post by rnaa


No the invalid short form altered computerized document posted on a third party internet site by desperate campaign officials does not have any pertinent information on it.

You can't overcome that simple fact all you can do is hope to fool people into believing what evidently you must be unaware of yourself, as I am sure you are someone of higher charachter than someone who would deliberately mistate information for deceptive purposes.

Once again dozens of law suits proceed against the illigitimate and tainted frightened occupant of the White House who spends millions of dollars and hires teams of lawyers to keep the document you are incorrectly stating has been released from ever seeing the light of day or American Citizens seeing it.

One can only speculate as to why until justice is eventually served and the sordid facts are known by all.

Thanks.

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by Hemisphere
reply to post by whatukno

 

Have read it. It says:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

It reads the same at any speed. He has seen and verified it is on record. If it said "I have seen and verified his birth certificate period" you might have something. That is the reason it is worded as it is. It is deflective and confusing to say the least. With what is on the line here saying "I saw the birth certificate" would go a long way. He can't, perhaps he prefers not to lie leaving himself a future "out". He has not seen it and likely is not allowed to see it without permission of said party.

What part of that is deflective or ambigous?

He is the legal, statutory custodian of the documents. He is exactly the person who you are trying to get to. There is nothing deflective or ambiguous about it.

He has personally seen the Archived Form Birth Certificate Document. He makes that assertion in words 33 and 34 (by my count). There is nothing deflective or ambiguous about it.

He has personally verified that it is Obama's original birth certificate in words 33, 47 and 48. There is nothing deflective or ambiguous about it.

He has personally verified that the document filed in the Hawaii Official Records in accordance with Hawaiian law. There is nothing deflective or ambiguous about it.

He has in addition, in other statements, and by affixing the seal and his signature to it, certified that the information on the Public Form Birth Certificate is an accurate copy of the information on the Archived Form. There is nothing deflective or ambiguous about it.

The statement posted by another and quoted by me clearly states he has personally seen that the state has it. Nothing indicates he has seen it proper. Perhaps there is a log and it is listed. We will agree to disagree on this I take it.

Originally posted by Hemisphere

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by whatukno

 

Have read it. It says:

“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawai‘i, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawai‘i State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.

(snip)
He has personally seen the Archived Form Birth Certificate Document. He makes that assertion in words 33 and 34 (by my count). There is nothing deflective or ambiguous about it.

The statement posted by another and quoted by me clearly states he has personally seen that the state has it. Nothing indicates he has seen it proper. Perhaps there is a log and it is listed. We will agree to disagree on this I take it.

Hemisphere, I thank you for your reading and interpretive skills, and unfortunately not everyone shares your skills. Starred your post. Your interpretation is clearly supported by the statement, but rnaa's interpretation that he has seen the actual birth certificate is clearly not supported by that carefully worded statement.

I'm only addressing what can be directly confirmed by the statement. I have no idea if he's seen the original document or not, but I am just pointing out as hemisphere did that the statement released doesn't say that he's seen it, and there could be other means (such as a log, or even having someone else look at the original who then provided him with a record he could look at to make that statement) to make what he said true without looking at the original himself.

The statement says exactly what it says and nothing more. It's carefully worded and if he had meant to say more, it would say more, but it doesn't. But people should stop inferring it says things it doesn't actually say, like rnaa's false claim that "He has personally seen the Archived Form Birth Certificate Document." Maybe he has seen it, but the statement doesn't say that he has.

reply to post by Hemisphere

reply to post by Arbitrageur


But how do you guys wiggle through this wording?

“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.

Source

I mean, I know you'll have some way of wiggling through it, but I'm just curious what it is...

And this is the best reason I can think of why Obama wouldn't release the long form. Because of all the "wigglers" out there. They'd find a way to make it "fake" and you'd go right along with it in an INSTANT. I don't care what you'd say. Anyone who has wiggled their way through all the evidence that has been presented and comes out thinking that it's ALL false, in the face of no evidence of their own but a "suspicious feeling", is not going to give up their own personal belief that they are devoted to because they see yet one more piece of evidence on the Internet.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

So you are completely happy with Obama or Soetoro spending an obscene amount of taxpayers money defending cases where there are apparently no grounds for any defence required at all, just in case someone then says the original long form certificate is a forgery. What a waste of money when people will no doubt freeze to death in their tents this winter.
That is wriggling at its best. He would show it to a judge in one of the numerous cases (not put it on fact check) and it would have to be forensically examined and certified as the original. In that case, as long as those forensic experts were independent and not in the pay of the government, then most would accept that. After the certificate is revealed though, there are still many unanswered questions pertaining to SSN’s and seeming fraudulent use therefore, and selective service registration tampering. Then it would be nice to see the credentials that apparently got him into the position he is in, such as college grades etc.
You can speculate and generalise as to how people will react all you like, it does not make it true, just as a false assumption that you have sighted a legally verified and legitimate certification (not a certificate) on the Internet is any proof of anything at all, except fraudulent activity.
As the dept of health have been caught lying on at least two occasions quite blatantly, then you will have to do better than endlessly quote a statement that may indeed be another lie, let alone an infringement of their own privacy laws. And as the companion argument against his ineligibility is an assertion that nobody quite knows what constitutes a natural born citizen, why then are you quoting a government dept that has lied blatantly as the final word on this, while denying that constitutional scholars know the answer? Although, interestingly enough they did use the term ‘natural-born citizen’ with the hyphen, rather than natural born citizen. So possibly more obfuscation. And no doubt when the truth does come out they will give the usual excuse for their somewhat illegal behaviour by saying ‘We did not understand the request’ just before Fukino, Okubo and the attorney general are up on charges.
And I would not assume how people will react if I were you. A certificate came up only the other day and instantly was debunked by all. So I think the lack of discernment or even understanding is from those who wish to blindly believe that he is eligible. The constant writing of the same questions over and over and over on this thread testifies to that.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
As the dept of health have been caught lying on at least two occasions quite blatantly, then you will have to do better than endlessly quote a statement that may indeed be another lie...

Thanks. I was just curious how you all would wiggle through that one and I see it's simply, "They're lying"!

And I would not assume how people will react if I were you.

Oh, I don't know... I've been pretty accurate so far.

Thanks again.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

But how do you guys wiggle through this wording?

“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.

Source

I mean, I know you'll have some way of wiggling through it, but I'm just curious what it is...

And this is the best reason I can think of why Obama wouldn't release the long form. Because of all the "wigglers" out there.

They'd find a way to make it "fake" and you'd go right along with it in an INSTANT. I don't care what you'd say. Anyone who has wiggled their way through all the evidence that has been presented and comes out thinking that it's ALL false, in the face of no evidence of their own but a "suspicious feeling", is not going to give up their own personal belief that they are devoted to because they see yet one more piece of evidence on the Internet.

Frankly BH as was discussed with you by others pages ago in the thread this statement was later retracted and contradicted when it was subsequently disclosed that there are supposedly no original documents being stored by the State of Hawaii after supposedly digitizing their files years ago which rendered the whole statement suspect but lets look once more first at what hasn’t been done here.

The good Doctor whose family was no doubt interred during World War II merely for being Japanese after Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor of course is trustworthy. I am sure he bears no malice towards the state or nation that imprisoned them simply for being Japanese. Of course others might be less trusting than I.

However despite the Doctors good upstanding character which obviously there is no cause to question let’s look at what was not done. 1st, no signed, sworn notarized Statement admissible in a court of law has been issued, just a brief reluctant statement to the press made under intense political pressure. What does that mean? If it’s not sworn testimony under a penalty of perjury it’s just hearsay.

So for some reason the Doctor felt it wise to just verbally issue a statement and not a written and signed statement.

I wonder why that was?

Now let’s look at the statement segment by segment shall we? I know you are excited about this I am too!

1. “I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino”…well there was no identification provided to verify that the person making this statement was either (a) a Doctor, or (b) one Doctor Chiyome Fukino…since none of those things are required when making statements to the press but certainly are when making sworn statements to Public Notaries or to officers of the court in courts of law. We can only assume this is a Doctor and is Chiyome Fukino as it hasn’t been legally established.

2. “director of the State Department of Health” director has been purposefully left un-capitalized in this statement denoting that while the State Department of Health is a capitol and capital entity the Doctor is not making the statement as it’s legal director on behalf of the State Department of Health but simply is the director of the State Department of Health who if speaking officially for the State Department of Health as it’s Director would have capitalized the D as a title instead of using it as an adjective to describe their job.

3. “Have seen the original vital records” what though are the original vital records? I have seen the original vital records of the United States of America…but what are those The Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights or the Treaty of Paris? One, none or all of them? Hard to say from the statement just like it’s impossible to say what vital records that weren’t Vital Records but just vital records once again the lack of capital letters showing that what ever vital records allegedly seen were unspecified non-official records since they weren’t Vital Records, let alone any precise descriptions such as name of form, title of form or number of form.

4. “maintained on file by the Hawai’i State Department of Health” lets take a look at this in legalize again as any attorney or court of law would at what’s not being said. The STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH appears just like that when it’s binding and official, the State Department of Health is just a title, further he does not claim it’s Hawaii’s STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH as in an apostrophe Hawaii controls this State Department of Health and he certainly is not claiming to be acting as it’s Director but is simply it’s director and is not claiming to be speaking for the official entity when bound always displayed as HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

5. “Verifying Barrack Hussein Obama” once again no he’s not as no fingerprint analyses has been done to even confirm that this is the baby fingerprinted on the unspecified types of vital records he is claiming to see even though the HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH later said all original records were destroyed years and years ago. So once again for all we know the man occupying the white house is Khalid Sheik Mohammad since no official identification has ever been performed. Further the legal entity known as BARRACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is not being discussed but an uspecified natural human being referred to non legally binding as Barrack Hussein Obama.

6. “was born in Hawai’i” since we have not established that the occupant of the White House is the child supposedly born as supposedly denoted on the unspecified vital records by someone who is the director but not acting in their capacity as Director to the State Department of Health and certainly not the Director of the HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH then exactly who and what is this Barrack Hussein Obama born in Hawai’i? A fictitious name entity, a living human being who is where? As we don’t know since none of these things have ever been connected, in fact we don’t even have a close living relative from his time of birth who claims the occupant of the White House is the Barrack Hussein Obama the director is personally not Officially talking about.

7. “and is a natural-born American citizen” really? What is a natural-born citizen as there is not one dictionary in the world that considers natural-born any official recognized word with a precise legal or even medical meaning. So the director who just happens to be the director and is not acting as the Director has coined a new word that legally means NOTHING. Lawyers and Judges are very precise creatures BH I am not nit-picking I am just dissecting how a Lawyer or Judge would a statement regarding it’s veracity, supposed official capacity and admissibility in a court of law to establish legal precedent and legal fact and so far this statement has not established any thing legally except an improperly identified person not acting in an official capacity by the State agency that employs them claims to have seen some unspecified vital records that they allege belong to an improperly identified person that establish them as being described by a hyphenated word with no legal or medical definition and here comes the best for last an "American citizen". Well the United States of America legally known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is not being referenced to and neither is Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Uruguay, Panama, Columbia, Chile, Brazil or Argentina being specified which are all AMERICAN nations.

Yes you were correct BH nothing at all to that statement except a lot of unofficial, vague, poorly qualified gibberish by a stressed public official acting in a non official, and non binding capacity that yielded nothing that could be used against them in a court of law and nothing that could be used for a person in a court of law.

Some people are easily fooled and dissuaded and persuaded most often by a lack of understanding and education.

When you understand the law, the government, the English language, and the fact that the Doctor refused to answer any questions regarding this non-statement or to elaborate on it what you have is NOTHING.

At least nothing that could be used in a Court of Law, but you do have something to impress the gullible with there BH, it’s one mighty fine precisely worded piece of inadmissible hearsay. Congratulations would you like a cigar? It’s a farce.



[edit on 23/10/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

But how do you guys wiggle through this wording?

“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.

Source

I mean, I know you'll have some way of wiggling through it, but I'm just curious what it is...

It seems to me that Fukino is the one doing the "wiggling" with these vague statements!

Protoplasmic traveler answered everything in depth, but my answer is much shorter: What the heck are "vital records"? If he meant "certificate of live birth" I know what that is, why didn't he just say that? Why is he playing word games?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


"Vital Records" is the generic legal term describing the records kept by governments for births, deaths, marriages, divorces, adoptions, etc. There are no word games going on.

The legal custodian of the documents is explicitly telling you that he has personally seen the archived original "vital record" that is being questioned, the record of birth, which shows that was born in Honolulu and guarantees that it is genuine. There may, in fact, be other other vital records, such as a marriage certificate (I don't know, did the parents even get married?) or whatever, doesn't matter though because they are not being questioned.

Look, Google is your friend. If you use it to search for the phrase "Vital Records" you will find any number of hits from many states, basically describing how to order copies of the vital records that the state has on archive. You might try "Vital Records Hawaii" and see what it tells you.

It is just a bit unfair to accuse the good Doctor of playing word games when he uses the standard terminology used in the entire English speaking world and you are too lazy to find out what it means, don't you think?

Can't you educate yourself and do your own research or do you just parrot the doubts that the puppetmasters put into your head and then expect others to fix it for you?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Sorry, you have put a lot of effort to produce a lot of hogwash.

I recommend you Google the term "Vital Records" to find out what a State Official means when they use the term. The term is used by EVERY Government Archive in the English speaking world to refer to a specific set of records that are kept by the State on behalf of its citizens. A set of records that includes Births, Deaths, Marriages, and the like.

As for challenging the Doctor's credentials, that is really grasping at straws. The statement was issued on official Hawai'ian Department of Health letterhead, and no one else has challenged her position, includeing the Republican State Attorney General.

This is going to be my standard response to the birther bull that infects this site.

whatukno.com...

Enjoy.

I even have a poll you can vote on!

[edit on 10/24/2009 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno

This is going to be my standard response to the birther bull that infects this site.

If it is bull then why spend your days repeating the same nonsense over and over and asking the same questions over and over and never ever listening or reading the answers. Seems somewhat obsessional. And now here you are creating your own page to display this foolishness to even more of the world. Each to their own. You just toe the line and be a good boy now.

Originally posted by oneclickaway
You just toe the line and be a good boy now.

That's rude.....now step aside and leave the rude to the experts.

I'll answer for him.....and ask for his forgiveness afterwords. It's just like encountering people who for no real reason feel compelled to jam sharp sticks in their eyes.....it isn't good for them, and someone really should have the altruistic cojones to step up and tell them.......

Stop that, it makes you look odd....and doesn't improve your outlook at all.

reply to post by oneclickaway


It's to answer the same questions over and over that I created that post. I was hoping that whatukno.com would be a spin free place, but I felt that it was necessary to address the bull dunk that is the birther movement. This way it frees me from typing out my responses to the nonsense and people can actually fact check me and reply. I will of course adjust my post on whatukno.com accordingly but at least I don't have to waste my time in repeatedly posting the same information.

reply to post by MrPenny

I'll answer for him.....and ask for his forgiveness afterwords. It's just like encountering people who for no real reason feel compelled to jam sharp sticks in their eyes.....it isn't good for them, and someone really should have the altruistic cojones to step up and tell them.......

Stop that, it makes you look odd....and doesn't improve your outlook at all.

Yes I know pointing out complete crap does make me look bad and "part of the institution" but if someone didn't show that this theory was complete and utter twaddle then rampant and uncontrolled rumor would rule over the internet. I feel that I am a buffer between total bull dunk and what is reality.

[edit on 10/24/2009 by whatukno]

Originally posted by whatukno
Yes I know pointing out complete crap does make me look bad

My apologies....that was not my intent. I'm pretty sure your motives line up closely with mine......the overwhelming urge to stamp out stupidity, ignorance, assumption, hyperbole, etc.....

Jeez.....I hope we're on the right side.

reply to post by MrPenny


Oh it's alright, this conspiracy has so little reality that it's easy to get confused. I apparently did that. It's ok.

What I am trying to do is present a one stop shop for everyone on ATS to access to prove that this bull dunk is in fact bull dunk.

It just makes it easier for all of us who know that this conspiracy is complete and utter bull dunk.

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

"Vital Records" is the generic legal term describing the records kept by governments for births, deaths, marriages, divorces, adoptions, etc. There are no word games going on.

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating why Fukino's wording is vague!

After all, we aren't looking for deaths, marriages, divorces, adoptions, etc

As you demonstrate his statement is very vague. For all we know, what his statement means is that the "vital records" he looked at were data typed into a computer database and not a certificate of live birth. Why don't we know what he looked at? Because the term "vital records" is indeed vague as you pointed out.

Habeus Corpus is a legal term too but just because someone uses a legal term like that does not make their statement clear.

reply to post by rnaa


Seems pretty simple to me. Just who declared this person to be the end all to make such a statement?

Why is it we can't believe what politicians et al have to say, yet this persons' words are golden? Says who? Under what authority?

And why are so many just willing to sit back and take their word for it? Because it fits their agenda?

It's just all too convenient now, isn't it? He is nothing more than another shill, probably paid, at that.

The funny thing the blind cannot see is that by declaring such a statement, when they prior had claimed they are not allowed to release said information, have completely negated their argument to privacy. Once some disclosure is made, real or alleged, they are required by default to disclose it all.

Especially since not even the Supreme Court can settle on a decision of "Natural Born". This official completely lost credibility with the utterance of that phrase. He has *zero* authority to even make it.

And we should just "trust" him. Shyeah, right, you go for it.

Just a shell game, friend.


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Libertygal]

The last two posts are perfect examples of splitting hairs and deflection.

No level of logic, reasoning, or evidence, will be suitable for those who insist on clogging up their minds with this buffoonery.

reply to post by MrPenny


Well put, Mr. Penny. I like to refer to Frank Shaeffer's response when Rachel Maddow asked him:

Rachel: How do you work to move people off of that position? It doesn't seem like facts are relevant in trying to move people away from these beliefs...

Shaeffer: You don't work to move them off this position. You move past them. [...] until the Republican Leadership has the guts to stand up and say, "It would be better not to have a Republican Party than have a party that caters to the village idiot", there's gonna be no end in sight.

Thread



reply to post by whatukno


Very well done! Bravo. Too bad it falls on deaf ears.

[edit on 24-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]