PART 1 of 2
April 28, 2009
Following the publication of When Will America Have Had Enough, I received an e-mail from an individual, most incensed that I would write such "rot" concerning the eligibility of Also Known As (AKA) Obama to the office of president. Didn't I know that Janice Okubo of the Hawaii Health Department, when queried by the "Tribune", had stated that the birth certificate held by Hawaii was issued by Hawaii?
Having never heard of Janice Okubo or her supposed revelation before, and thinking I might have missed something important in my research, it seemed prudent to see what I could find. My search came up with an archived article in the "Chicago Tribune" in which Janice Okubo's name appeared. The article is titled Obama birth certificate rumor debunked and was published October 30, 2008.
What did Janice Okubo, spokeswoman for the Hawaii Department of Health, have to say?
"Contacted Wednesday, Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo cited Hawaii state privacy laws and guidance from the state attorney general in saying she was not permitted to confirm the authenticity of the certificate released by the Obama campaign.
But she said it appeared similar to other Hawaii birth certificates.
'It looks exactly the same as my own birth certificate,' Okubo said."
It becomes readily apparent that what Ms Okubo is referring to as a "birth certificate" isn't a birth certificate, it's a Certification of Live Birth or COLB, the "certificate released by the Obama campaign". The COLB is a computer generated document printed with a laser printer. It is not the "original birth certificate" referred to in the Fukino press release. The "original birth certificate" would have been generated at the time of or shortly after the birth; it would not be computer generated and it would contain significantly more information than shown on the COLB.
One has to wonder how Okubo, as the spokeswoman for the Hawaii Health Department, could mistake a COLB for an original birth certificate. It is the original birth certificate that people concerned about the eligibility of AKA to the office of president are seeking. Their concerns are well-founded given that forensic specialists have signed sworn affidavits stating the document AKA has presented as his COLB is a forgery and Okubo made it abundantly clear that she could not confirm the authenticity of the COLB released by the Obama campaign; just that it looks like what she inaccurately calls her "birth certificate."
Next, I found an article, dated November 3, 2008, by the same journalist, only this time published by "The Swamp", the Washington DC bureau of the Chicago Tribune, entitled Obama Hawaiian-born: Citizen for sure. Okubo is also quoted in that article in reference to Dr Fukino's press release of October 31, 2008 in which Fukino stated:
“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.
In reference to this quote, the article states:
"Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?
'Yes,' said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. 'That's what Dr. Fukino is saying.'"
Is it? This is that same individual who doesn't know the difference between a birth certificate and a COLB.
And if that was what Fukino was saying, why did Dr Fukino not simply state that? Why is her press release so carefully worded to not state that? And why did she simply not clarify in a follow-up press release? Okubo and the Tribune are obviously aware that Okubo's statement, while interesting and no doubt welcomed by those who want to believe AKA was born in Hawaii, has no significance whatsoever; it proves nothing; it is nothing more than hearsay: she said she said.
An e-mail to Okubo, requesting clarification, remains unanswered which is answer in itself.
It is of note that Fukino, in her press release, did not state that the "original birth certificate" Hawaii holds for AKA was issued by Hawaii. Why this is of importance is the fact that Hawaii, in 1961, allowed for the birth registration of foreign-born children so long as one parent was American and had claimed Hawaii as their permanent address for one year prior to the registration. As such, the birth certificate Hawaii holds may not have been issued by Hawaii.
As AKA was adopted by Lolo Soetoro prior to January 1, 1967, the COLB he is waving about as his birth certificate, in order to be accurate, would show his father as Lolo Soetoro, his name as Barry Soetoro. As Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian citizen who traveled to Pakistan in 1981, after his 18th birthday, on a passport that could not have been American, it is obvious that he is not an American citizen.
The fact that he admits he was a dual citizen at birth also precludes him from eligibility under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution.
For some time, people concerned about the eligibility of AKA to the office of president have been concerned that a forged birth certificate would suddenly appear. On April 19, 2009, a post appeared on RepubX, posted by "Probie," in which FBI sources close to the AKA Administration have supposedly stated that a forged birth certificate is in the works. This, of course, is all hearsay and may or may not be true. The significance is that any birth certificate now produced by AKA will be challenged.
People need to be contacting their Congress men and women and demanding that Congress obtain AKA's:
form birth certificate;
2. adoption records;
3. education records;
4. health records;
5. selective service records;
6. passport records;
7. social security records including disclosure of all social security numbers he has used;
… and that this be done immediately
It becomes obvious that if AKA had nothing to hide, he would have already produced the documents. That he hasn't makes it abundantly clear that what he is hiding is evidence that he does not meet the requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, United States Constitution; he is not a natural born citizen; he is probably not even a naturalized citizen.
Week before last, in his travels about the world, AKA stopped off in Mexico City, where he furthered the lie of his Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton, that guns in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels are being supplied by Americans.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the rocket launchers, grenades and military grade weapons being used by the Mexican drug cartels didn't come from your next door neighbor or your local gun shop. It is very obvious that these type weapons are illegal for Americans to own; have been for some time!
And the truth of the matter is that the armament being used by the Mexican drug cartels came from weapons purchased by the Mexican government from the U.S. State Department; said armaments ending up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels via corrupt Mexican military and law enforcement personnel.
That AKA would deliberately point the finger of blame at the American people is unconscionable. That he would make such an accusation to a foreign government should not surprise the American people considering, in his jaunt around the world, he left no opportunity vacant to denigrate both Americans and America.
Bluntly speaking, if AKA doesn't like the United States, and he has made it abundantly clear in his denigratory remarks that he does not, he can leave any time; we most assuredly won't miss his pathetic Marxist bilge! We have no doubt that Hugo Chavez would welcome his Marxist comrade with open arms!
But in the case of the lies he has told about how the Mexican drug cartels ended up with American military grade weapons and armament, AKA is pursuing an agenda, the intention of which is to justify stricter gun control laws. AKA is pushing for senate ratification of the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials treaty (called CIFTA after its Spanish name) which would do significant harm to American rights under the Second Amendment, requiring the United States adopt laws that would…
the marking of all ammunition;
2. deny people the ability to reload ammunition;
3. deny people the right to modify a weapon;
4. deny people the right to construct a weapon;
5. redefine the Second Amendment.
But, you say, no treaty can supersede the Constitution? How many times have we heard that only to watch Congress, the Oval Office and the courts violate the Constitution? The only redress the people have, once their constitutional rights are violated, is via the corrupt courts who adamantly refuse, as shown in the various eligibility cases, to recognize the right of the people to redress of grievance under the Constitution. If the people have no redress of grievance against violation of the Constitution, do they then, have Constitutional rights?
In the past three weeks, articles have been published in various newspapers making a claim along the lines of the following...
"Spies hacked into the U.S. electric grid and left behind computer programs that would let them disrupt service, exposing potentially catastrophic vulnerabilities in key pieces of national infrastructure, a former U.S. government official said Wednesday."
Yet an individual, in the field of power production, who shall remain nameless for the obvious reason of personal safety and security, states that taking down the power grid via computer hacking would be difficult if not impossible; that these are "someone's wild fantasies."
Why would such a story surface? Does it have anything to do with S 773 and S 778, introduced in the Senate, intended to give AKA the authority and means to shut down the internet at will, all in the name of "cyber security" of course?
Considering all the lies AKA has told, would it be outside the realm of possibility that this disinformation campaign is being pursued to justify S 773 and S 778?
The old adage that people willing to give up rights for security will, in the end, lose both, comes to mind. How many times has the government claimed the need for more laws, regulations and restrictions on American's freedom due to actions by non-Americans? For example, didn't the Patriot Act, targeting the freedom of Americans, come so rapidly on the heels of 9/11 that it was very obvious (as was later proven) that it was already written and waiting when 9/11 happened even though the government claimed 9/11 was the work of non-Americans? And didn't the unconstitutional Patriot Act result in baggage searches, strip searches and the invasion of the privacy of every American traveling through an airport, all in the name of "security"?
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Has all the time and money spent done anything to stop the terrorists crossing our open southern border? Of course not. That open border makes it very apparent that the targeting of the rights of Americans rather than doing what is needed to protect the people of America is about control, nothing more.
This is what gun control is about; this is what S 773 and S 778, H.R. 20, and H.R. 1388 are about; this is what AKA is about, period. For part two click below.
Click here for part -----> 2,
� 2009 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved
Activist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned with the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.
Web site: www.learn-usa.com