Skip to comments.Okubo gives false UIPA response to The Post & Email
Posted on 02/18/2010 4:24:48 AM PST by 1234
The credibility of Janice S. Okubo, Communications Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, is in question this morning, as The Post & Email discloses documents showing that she gave patently false information in response to a freedom of information request, made in accord with Hawaiis Uniform Information Pratices Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
Do you nutballs realize that the Governor of Hawaii is a Republican?
Do you think this means anything? Republicans do not stand for the Constitution any more, and are pretty much on side with the Democrat party in trying to ignore the issue.
This moronic response is just like the response about Obama’s eligibility .... “Well, it was in the paper”.
You are right! I didn't think of it before! The Republicans and the Clintons are in cahoots to insure that Obama is allowed to be president! You are a smarter person than me. I apologize!
You are short on facts and high on something.
informed folks have known this fact for a year, or more.
Page is gone...
404 Error! Page Not Found
Did anyone read the “article”? What a disjointed, rambling rant. You have to read half way through it to find out what the supposed lie is about.
He also “wrote her emphatically, demaning...” Well. You don’t have to “deman” her, she’s a woman. Geez.
I have questions about the BS Obama birth story, but ridiculous rants like this do not help.
Apparently she has forgotten that she is a Republican. Her concern for the laws of Hawaii are on life support being administered by hospice nurses.
Nice demonstration of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals there.
You can’t logically argue the article on the merits, so you debase the article for a typo.
Writing a convoluted bunch of crap is not a typo. How’s that for logic?
Keep your SA references to yourself. In fact, apply them to yourself, because your attack on me was nothing but a SA RFR tactic. Libtard wannabe.
As I said, I have questions about the birth story myself. That doesn’t mean I immediately buy into the writings of blithering idiot who couldn’t make a point with a pencil sharpener.
link "works for me"
As I said... nice demonstration of Saul Alinskys Rules for Radicals...
That’s what I thought.
Those following SA RFR quickly resort to name calling, which you have demonstrated effectively.
YOU equated me to a SA radical. You started it and can’t defend your action because you apparently don’t have the intellectual capacity. (That means you’re not smart.)
You are an excellent example of the adage, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
I do not think they are in cahoots, but they must have some reason for ignoring this issue. It’s a glaring one that you have to go to a lot of effort to step around. Why do *you* think they’re ignoring it?
Any single one of us with eyes to see and a brain to think wonder why he refuses to release his birth certificate, when it would settle the issue of his eligibility once and for all.
Will the one with the brain please step forward?
This is good stuff, but demanding that the public call for action won’t help. Lawyers, and more of them, descending on Hawaii will do the trick.
link not working
I feel sorry for the country....
Republican, Democrat,.... you can count on one hand the number of people who will challenge the President’s eligibility and put it all on the line.
What we have is a corrupt Judiciary who is suppose to defend the Constitution, Huh?
And Conservative talk show leaders (Journalists?) who won’t touch the subject because of ...
The way to get Obama’s birth records is not via freedom of information requests. The Attorney General of Hawaii has independent subpoena power and Hawaii laws allow birth records to be subpoenaed “by an officer of a court of competent jurisdiction.”
The current Attorney General is Mark Bennett and he, like Governor Lingle is a Republican. Political pressure from folks on the right could be brought to bear on him to subpoena the vital records. Governor Lingle is term limited and she’s out in November so she doesn’t care.
The Attorney General is appointed so he might want to keep his job if another Republican is elected in November.
Do you nutball comprehend the article enough to take a stand about the blatant lies coming of out HI?
Ranting about a rant doesn’t help. It would be more helpful to people coming to the thread to see that the article gives info there were Dunhams in HI that should be in the HI Birth Index. Okubo or someone in her dept LIED stating there were not but info on Dunhams born in HI was easily found on ancestry.com
Pointing out that something is barely readable isn’t ranting.
Go on then, perhaps you’d care to prove how you know that your hero 0bama is a natural born citizen? Seen his birth certificate? Care to share? Or maybe you won’t answer and will scuttle off back to DU.
Here’s a legal hurdle that must be overcome:
“July 27, 2009
I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack 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.”
Perhaps Hawaiian records from 1949 are incomplete.
Perhaps they flunky who did the search overlooked the record or the record is not filed correctly.
To properly claim Okubo lied, you have to demonstrate that the record is there and Okubo is aware that it is there. Not that it should be there according to another website.
1. I am a rational conservative.
2. Obama is NOT my hero.
3. Obama IS the President.
4. None of this birth certificate crap does anything but make conservatives look crazy.
5. The governor of Hawaii is a good Republican and would have exposed Obama if there was anything to expose.
6. The Clintons tried to find out any disqualifiers during the primaries.
7. Even if you were to prove tat 0 was born and raised in Kenya, there is no legaL PROCESS FOR REMOVING HIM.
8. Stop helping the Democrats!
“Any single one of us with eyes to see and a brain to think wonder why”
“Will the one with the brain please step forward?”
I find that funny.
u a lawyer?
Do you realize Arlen Sectacle is a Republican? And Juan McCrino?
Rahm Emmanuel said that Democrats own Hawaii. So what’s your problem?
The issue of Obama’s eligibility to be President is very important: either the Constitution counts for something or our right per that document have ceased to exist.
The definition of the term, natural born citizen, was entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866, in comments made by Rep. John Bingham on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment. He repeated Vattels definition when he said:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).
In other words, anyone born in the U.S.A. to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.
Here is the true precedent from a most liberal professor:
In a recent Illinois Public Law & Legal Theory written by Professor Lawrence B Solum of the U of IL, College of Law, Chicago, Solum further explains why the English common law definition of natural born subject was not the definition adopted by the Framers for the Sovereign citizens of the United States of America.
[Blackstone Commentaries (1765): When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king’s ambassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England’s allegiance, represented by his father, the ambassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...]
[F.E. Edwards, Natural Born British Subjects at Common Law, 14 Journal of the Society of Comparative Legislation 314 (1914): The pro- position that British Protectorates, and consequently any less interest of the Crown, should be excluded from our definition of the King’s protection, is supported by Sir William Anson, who declares that birth within such a region is not sufficient to found a claim for British natural-born status. The real test of whether a given territory is part of the British Dominions is that it must have passed openly, completely, and unequivocally into the possession of the Crown.]
[Solum: If the American conception of natural born citizen were equivalent to the English notion of a natural born subject, then it could be argued that only persons born on American soil to American parents would have qualified. This might lead to the conclusion that McCain would not be a constitutional natural-born citizen, because the Panama Canal Zone was not the sovereign territory of the United States, but was instead merely subject to its administrative control.
The language of the Constitution recognizes a distinction between the terms citizen and subject. For example, in Article III Section 2, which confers judicial power on the federal courts, citizens of the several states are differentiated from citizens or subjects of foreign statescorresponding to the distinction between diversity and alienage jurisdiction. In the framing era, these two terms reflected two distinct theories of the relationship between individual members of a political community and the state.
In feudal or monarchical constitutional theory, individuals were the subjects of a monarch or sovereign, but the republican constitutional theory of the revolutionary and post revolutionary period conceived of the individual as a citizen and assigned sovereignty to the people.
The distinction between citizens and subjects is reflected in Chief Justice John Jays opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, the first great constitutional case decided after the ratification of the Constitution of 1789:
[T]he sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State
[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects ]
As you can see, in England there are two very distinct meanings of natural born subject. In one hand there is the broader view & in the other there is the view of the laws of nations. What the liberal progressive constitutionalists use is the broader view and thus disregard the fact that at some point, even England used the law of nations. The Framers also knew of Englands use of the law of nations and were very aware of its importance when establishing a new nation. It has also been proven that the Law of Nations was in the hands of the Framers at the time of the drafting of the Declaration of Independence.
We know for a fact from the very 1st SCOTUS Justice Washington appointed, a Justice who was only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution that the definition for US citizens was not derived from English common law, but on the law of Nations which is the law of nature:
The law of nature, when applied to states and political societies, receives a new name, that of the law of nations. This law, important in all states, is of peculiar importance in free ones. The States of America are certainly entitled to this dignified appellation But if the knowledge of the law of nations is greatly useful to those who appoint, it surely must be highly necessary to those who are appointed As Puffendorff thought that the law of nature and the law of nations were precisely the same, he has not, in his book on these subjects treated of the law of nations separately; but has every where joined it with the law of nature, properly called so the law of nature is applied to individuals; the law of nations is applied to states.
Wilson, in his 1st commentaries, blasts Blackstones theory by citing that the definition of subject per English common law according to Blackstone was not the definition of citizen as adopted by the framers of the US Constitution. A subject is ruled by an all powerful central government/monarchy and the under the new Constitution of the United States, the central governments power is derived from the people, the citizens.
Wilson also wrote the very 1st SCOTUS decision in Chisolm which is cited to this day as to the powers of the central government. He also was no right-wing conservative where the limits of the central government were concerned. Wilson felt that the Constitution did not go far enough in giving broader powers to those in Washington, but he KNEW the premise of the Constitution and stood behind it in every decision he made, regardless of his political philosophy.
* * * * *
The following are four examples.
1. Birthplace important AND parentage important — a “natural born” citizen is any person born in the US mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) AND born of US citizen parents (that’s two) — think Ronald Reagan.
2. Birthplace important AND parentage not important — a “native born” citizen (also considered a 14th Amendment citizen) is any person born in the US mainland (includes Alaska and Hawaii) — one or both of the parents may be foreign nationals — think Barack Obama.
3. Birthplace not important AND parentage important — a citizen “by statute” is any person born of a US citizen parent(s) outside the US mainland — think John McCain.
4. Birthplace not important AND parentage not important — a “naturalized” citizen is a citizen as the result of a process (i.e. by federal statute as bestowed to Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 4) — think Arnold Schwarzenegger.
A statutory citizen (bestowed by man’s pen) can never be a “natural born” citizen (bestowed by God/nature).
Statutory citizenship means that a person’s citizenship requires a law or laws to define it. A citizen via statute is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
A person who is natural born requires no laws to define their citizenship. Only a “natural born” citizen is constitutionally eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief.
“Natural born” citizens are in a class separate from all others. They are, in fact, in a classification or category unto themselves because they alone are eligible to serve as Commander-in-Chief — a fact that unsettles many.
There is no ‘right’ to be President, no matter what the lefties say.
One more thing.
“Even if you were to prove tat 0 was born and raised in Kenya, there is no legaL PROCESS FOR REMOVING HIM.”
There sure as Hell is a legal process for removing a usurper from public office.
It is called Quo Warranto, and is a civil lawsuit filed only in Washington, D.C.’s District Court.
1. The guy asks about "Frances C. Dunahm Age 24; Married; Born in Keanae, Maui, Terr.of HI; in 1925" and "Erleen A. Dunham Age 8 mos; Born in Honolulu, in Sept 1948." But if you look at the ship's passenger list he links to, those individuals' last name is spelled "Dunnam," not "Dunham." He never asked Okubo about anyone named Dunnam.
2. That leaves us with the 9-month-old Roger Dunham. According to Hawaiian Dept of Health, "The Certificate of Hawaiian Birth program was established...to register a person born in Hawaii who was one year old or older and whose birth had not been previously registered in Hawaii." Hawaiianroots.com says, "These forms were issued to people who did not have a birth certificate recorded at the time of their birth." If 9-month-old Roger had a regular birth certificate, he wouldn't be in the Certificate of Hawaiian Birth Index Charlton asked Okubo to search.
Sorry, there's nothing there.
Careful, the deployment and use facts on a birther thread could lead to you being declared an obot.
Republicans respond to threats just as well as DemocRats.
Arlen Sphincter is a Democrat
"There is no controlling legal authority"- Al Gore.
It's not a "legal" hurdle. That was not a sworn statement, it was a press release.
That's just the chance I'll have to take. I can't help it--I have this thing about facts.
It’s not a “legal” hurdle. That was not a sworn statement, it was a press release.
Arlen Sphincter was a Pub for almost 40 years. Hes only been a Dem for 6 months.
So the Gov of the communist state of Hawaii is a true blue republican? That would never protect a Communist Democrat? Interesting theory you have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.