Main Menu

Lakin sells

AdvertisementI have no way of knowing whether LtC Terry Lakin authorized the use of his image to sell tax advice, bridge loans, auto liability insurance, and whatever other advertising attaches itself to his photo over at WorldNetDaily (hover mouse anywhere over the photo at WND for maximum advertising effect). Nonetheless, I think this image, as much as any other, points out how this honorable, but confused, soldier has become the tool of the commercial interests of Joseph Farah and his tribe.

Clearly Lakin is being made a fool of by the birthers and his lawyer Paul Jensen who told bald-faced lies on the Anderson Cooper 360 program on CNN while Lakin looked on blankly, probably without a clue that the Hawaiian law Jensen was waving hadn’t been passed until 21 years after Obama’s birth was registered in Hawaii.

103 Responses to Lakin sells

  1. avatar
    AnotherBird October 9, 2010 at 7:59 pm #

    I think the issue is that of ISM and WND. I would agree that Lakin is deeply confused, and was prime to be manipulated. He knew the consequences of his actions, but was convinced that it was his best chance. I wonder when he will realize he always had no chance.

  2. avatar
    Phil Cave October 9, 2010 at 9:31 pm #

    Unfortunately this appears to create a problem with the Joint Ethics Regulation about appearing in uniform as part of an advertisement.
    Hopefully LTC Lakin did not authorize this use. If he did not and WND has usurped his picture then he probably has a get out for any disciplinary action.
    It is a violation of Article 92, UCMJ, and Article 133, UCMJ, to be in violation of the JER in this fashion.
    I do think this is one time LTC Lakin should get a pass.
    Also, in Google Chrome you don’t get that effect.

  3. avatar
    Dwight Sullivan October 9, 2010 at 9:44 pm #

    Phil, what’s your view of the JER implications of safeguardourconstitution.com using LTC Lakin’s picture in uniform to solicit funds at a time when LTC Lakin apparently authorized that website to speak for him?

  4. avatar
    Phil Cave October 9, 2010 at 9:54 pm #

    ML.
    I think the idea of the funding websites, LTC Lakin’s included, is a close question. But I’m thinking that as a fundraiser site (the SEALS are another example) there’s sufficient verbiage that it is clear they are not directly or indirectly implying DOD or DA endorsement, etc. So long as the lack of government endorsement is made clear I’m sanguine as to enforcing or seeking to enforce any rule. But I must say that I’ve been of two minds.
    However, this WND gives a new twist. I guess we’d have to get into advertising law.

    Here are some simplified “Rules” from the DOD SOCO.

    (DODD 1344.1)

    (1) Not allowed in connection with private employment or commercial interests;

    (2) Not allowed when an inference of official sponsorship may be drawn; and

    (3) Not allowed when wearing would bring discredit on the Armed Forces.

    (4) Applies to active duty, reserve and retired members.

    (5) Each Service also has separate regulations with similar wording:

    Look at item (3).

    This was the area I was thinking of when I’ve said that was a possible charge that the prosecutors may have looked at and passed over in their adherence to Okham’s Razor.

    (Note a potential application to a certain other individual.)

  5. avatar
    Phil Cave October 9, 2010 at 9:55 pm #

    http://goo.gl/ghXQ

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 9, 2010 at 10:12 pm #

    Phil Cave: Also, in Google Chrome you don’t get that effect.

    What I observe in FireFox and Internet Explorer is that the photo comes up clean at first. Then 10 seconds or so later a small box labeled “AD” appears in the lower left. If your mouse pointer moves over any section of the photo, then the ad in the photo with this article appears. Actually my photo crops the URL of the advertised company underneath.

    I want to be clear that one does not have to click or hover over the AD box to see the ad, only move the mouse pointer anywhere over the photo even briefly.

    It happened to me the first time solely by accident.

  7. avatar
    Phil Cave October 9, 2010 at 10:13 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: What I observe in FireFox and Internet Explorer

    Me too. It’s just those are not my browsers of choice for speed and security.
    Cheers.

  8. avatar
    David October 9, 2010 at 10:18 pm #

    http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=211881
    Army officer’s supporters warn of ‘greatest fraud ever’
    Group joins doctor’s campaign to challenge Obama’s eligibility

    A birth certificate would only prove one of two things – 1) Barack Hussein Obama (Sr) is his bloodline birth father and Barack Jr. was thereby a ‘dual citizen’ rather than natural born citizen at birth. In this case, Obama fails constitutional requirements,” a statement prepared by the organization said.

    Lakin’s position has been to maintain that there are enough legitimate questions about Obama’s eligibility to support his conclusion that orders under Obama’s chain of command could be illegal and he would, therefore, be required to disobey them.

    The authority to convene a courts-martial itself is without legal authority when the chain of command is broken at the top,” the union position paper said. “This is true for any soldier who has been court-martialed under Barack Hussein Obama, or ordered to deploy by Barack Hussein Obama, until all reasonable doubt concerning Obama’s eligibility can be removed by way of fact and evidence.”

    “This entire matter amounts to a national security crisis beyond monumental proportions, which is why everyone up the chain of command to the White House hopes to keep this case from ever reaching an honest unfettered discovery phase,” the group said.

  9. avatar
    David October 9, 2010 at 10:27 pm #

    “LTC Lakin is consistent in continuing on the same path that he announced publicly six months ago when he released his first YouTube video – and consistent with his military training, to continue to request assurance from Pentagon leadership that his military orders, including his deployment orders to Afghanistan, are legal – authorized at the highest level by a commander-in-chief who is constitutionally eligible, per Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution,” the American Patriot Foundation said just yesterday.

  10. avatar
    Northland10 October 9, 2010 at 10:30 pm #

    David: David

    I am beginning to lose track of James, et. al (John, etc.), sock puppets. Are we going for Sven’s record (or thinking you could avoid the Doc).

  11. avatar
    misha October 9, 2010 at 11:58 pm #

    Let me know when Lakin is hawking cat food. Max is running low.

  12. avatar
    Lupin October 10, 2010 at 3:38 am #

    The Rosenbergs were also “honorable but confused”.

  13. avatar
    misha October 10, 2010 at 4:25 am #

    Lupin: The Rosenbergs were also “honorable but confused”.

    They were executed because of communist hysteria, and because they were Jewish. I remember the mass paranoia: if we were not vigilant, there would be a communist under everyone’s bed.

    Here’s someone I personally know, who was smeared daily, and whose career path is like mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Rogovin

    How many people did Shrub and Cheney sent to their deaths, or were maimed, so Cheney’s cronies could get their paws on Iraq’s oil? Of course, Shrub and his coterie are Republicans and Christians, so their motives are as pure as the driven snow.

  14. avatar
    misha October 10, 2010 at 4:36 am #

    Here’s more on Milton Rogovin:

    http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/06/interview-robert-hirsch-with-milton.html

  15. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 10, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    Northland10: I am beginning to lose track of James, et. al (John, etc.), sock puppets. Are we going for Sven’s record (or thinking you could avoid the Doc).

    Yes, David is James, John, Eugene, … If the IP address changes and the name and the URL, it’s hard to catch these automatically.

  16. avatar
    ellid October 10, 2010 at 9:29 am #

    misha:
    They were executed because of communist hysteria, and because they were Jewish. I remember the mass paranoia: if we were not vigilant, there would be a communist under everyone’s bed.Here’s someone I personally know, who was smeared daily, and whose career path is like mine:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_RogovinHow many people did Shrub and Cheney sent to their deaths, or were maimed, so Cheney’s cronies could get their paws on Iraq’s oil? Of course, Shrub and his coterie are Republicans and Christians, so their motives are as pure as the driven snow.

    The Rosenberg children, Michael and Robert Meeropol, live in my area (western Massachusetts). Robert lives in my town, in a different neighborhood; it’s very likely that I’ve seen him in the grocery story or the pharmacy and not known it.

  17. avatar
    Reality Check October 10, 2010 at 9:55 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Yes, David is James, John, Eugene, … If the IP address changes and the name and the URL, it’s hard to catch these automatically.

    Is this the infamous JY1977 who wants to piss on Judge Lind?

  18. avatar
    misha October 10, 2010 at 11:52 am #

    ellid: The Rosenberg children, Michael and Robert Meeropol, live in my area (western Massachusetts). Robert lives in my town

    In 1965, I lived in Concord and then Framingham. My step-father had ten patents, and was hired by Itek. My cousins live in Newton Center.

    When someone has a detached retina, a laser is used to spot weld it to the posterior of the eyeball. My step-father designed the optics to guide and aim the laser.

    misha: Here’s more on Milton Rogovin:http://www.americansuburbx.com/2009/06/interview-robert-hirsch-with-milton.html

    Rogovin, now 100, is also Jewish. Notice it’s now Muslims who are subversives. At least the heat is off us.

  19. avatar
    Mary Brown October 10, 2010 at 12:14 pm #

    Who knows who is next? Misha, can you answser a question for me. I recently saw a film about an Israeli Arab family. There was a lot that was disturbing to me about the status of women in that culture in the film. But at one point the father went into a coffee shop and was refused service because of his ethnicity. Does Israeli law allow this? It just reminded me of Mississippi circa 1950.

  20. avatar
    Phil Cave October 10, 2010 at 12:20 pm #

    David: The authority to convene a courts-martial itself is without legal authority when the chain of command is broken at the top,” the union position paper said. “This is true for any soldier who has been court-martialed under Barack Hussein Obama, or ordered to deploy by Barack Hussein Obama, until all reasonable doubt concerning Obama’s eligibility can be removed by way of fact and evidence.”

    Drivel.

  21. avatar
    misha October 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm #

    Mary Brown: But at one point the father went into a coffee shop and was refused service because of his ethnicity. Does Israeli law allow this? It just reminded me of Mississippi circa 1950.

    There is a law against it, but who is going to enforce it? The fact is, Arabs are 2nd class citizens.

    See my article, A Jewish Pogrom. Israelis hate me for writing it; Arabs love me. If you look at my map, you’ll see for yourself.

  22. avatar
    misha October 10, 2010 at 12:44 pm #

    Mary Brown: But at one point the father went into a coffee shop and was refused service because of his ethnicity. Does Israeli law allow this? It just reminded me of Mississippi circa 1950.

    “The Israeli cabinet has approved a controversial bill that would require all non-Jews taking Israeli citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state”.

    The law, which has angered Israel’s Arab minority, still has to be passed by the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.”

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11510765

  23. avatar
    sarina October 10, 2010 at 1:01 pm #

    My questions is: What Col Lakin is going to do if Obama produced his long form birth certificate? Hmmm…

  24. avatar
    tim October 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm #

    [This is from the banned tim/david/james, etc. I let it through. Doc.]

    Obama won’t produce it because no long-form BC exists. If Obama did indeed have a long-form BC we would have seen long long ago, probably when Phil Berg first sued Obama. Given the circumstancial evidence of Obama being born in Kenya, it remains to be seen if Obama born in Hawaii as a matter of documentation or of circumstance and fact (Obama was actually physically born in Hawaii.)

  25. avatar
    misha October 10, 2010 at 1:09 pm #

    Phil Cave: Didn’t the U.S. require that during the reconstruction era. Sorry if I’m getting my civil wars mixed.

    “During the American Civil War, political prisoners and prisoners of war were often released upon taking an “oath of allegiance”. Lincoln’s “Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction” featured an oath to “faithfully support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the union of the States thereunder” as a condition for a Presidential pardon. During Reconstruction, retroactive loyalty oaths were required, so that no one could hold federal, state, or local offices, who had been a Confederate soldier or sympathizer.”

    My point is simply this: Judaism and Jewish culture does not have to be guarded and protected. I believe it can stand on its own, and withstand the test of time.

    I believe that Israel was founded as a bulwark against genocide as a whole. I believe that welcoming everyone will make Israel thrive, like the States.

  26. avatar
    Sef October 10, 2010 at 1:10 pm #

    sarina: My questions is: What Col Lakin is going to doif Obama produced his long form birth certificate?Hmmm…

    Oh, he would cancel his suit, of course. LOL (The idiot thinks he’s in the driver’s seat.)

  27. avatar
    Tarrant October 10, 2010 at 1:14 pm #

    That is easy to answer – the same thing the Patroit Foundation currently says about the COLB and the various Hawaiian officials that have made statements about his birth – that either it’s forged/they’re lying, or that it shows he doesn’t fit their Vattel version of citizenship and therefore it changes nothing. In fact, it would probably embolden them, as by their view, “proof” that he didn’t have a citizen father (despite the fact that his book, his family, the COLB, and he himself already admit that) would in their minds mean that Lakin and birthers must “win”.

  28. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 10, 2010 at 1:24 pm #

    Phil Cave: Me too. It’s just those are not my browsers of choice for speed and security.
    Cheers.

    Phil, installed Google Chrome and got the same results that I did with FireFox and Internet Explorer. Perhaps you have JavaScript disabled?

  29. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 10, 2010 at 1:31 pm #

    tim: [This is from the banned tim/david/james, etc. I let it through. Doc.]Obama won’t produce it because no long-form BC exists.If Obama did indeed have a long-form BC we would have seen long long ago, probably when Phil Berg first sued Obama.Given the circumstancial evidence of Obama being born in Kenya, it remains to be seen if Obama born in Hawaii as a matter of documentation or of circumstance and fact (Obama was actually physically born in Hawaii.)

    Don’t be silly. The newspaper “Health Statistics” column in 1961 listed it. Hawaii’s Health Director personally examined and vouched for his original. Obama has published a certified abstract copy. Of COURSE# there is a long form. It only “remains to be seen” among the willfully blind.

    And in case you weren’t aware–Berg’s lawsuit was dismissed.

  30. avatar
    Phil Cave October 10, 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy: Perhaps you have JavaScript disabled?

    It’s enabled. But thanks.

  31. avatar
    Reality Check October 10, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    Phil Cave: It’s enabled. But thanks.

    Try disabling AdBlockPlus. It was blocking the ad from popping up on the image for me. I disabled ABP and it was there in a few seconds after I reloaded the page.

  32. avatar
    Phil Cave October 10, 2010 at 2:36 pm #

    Reality Check: Try disabling AdBlockPlus.

    Darn it, forgot about that. A “pause” of ABP works. Cheers RC.

  33. avatar
    Rickey October 10, 2010 at 3:03 pm #

    ellid:
    The Rosenberg children, Michael and Robert Meeropol, live in my area (western Massachusetts).Robert lives in my town, in a different neighborhood; it’s very likely that I’ve seen him in the grocery story or the pharmacy and not known it.

    A fascinating book about the Rosenberg case is “The Brother” by Sam Roberts of the New York Times.

  34. avatar
    jamese777 October 10, 2010 at 4:16 pm #

    I am still trying to figure out birther “logic” in explaning why a Republican Governor in Hawaii who campaigned for John McCain and delivered one of Sarah Palin’s nominating speeches at the Republican National Convention would put her political reputation and her future political career on the line in order to lie and cover for a liberal Democrat named Barack Hussein Obama II?

    “It’s been established, he was born here.”–Governor Of Hawai;i Linda Lingle (R)

  35. avatar
    misha October 10, 2010 at 4:20 pm #

    jamese777: “It’s been established, he was born here.”–Governor Of Hawai;i Linda Lingle (R)

    As I have written many times before, Lingle is Jewish. She felt McCain/Palin would be better for Israel, than Obama. If she could have found anything, they would have used it with glee.

    I never get a response from Denialists whenever I post this. Wonder why?

  36. avatar
    Jules October 10, 2010 at 6:31 pm #

    misha:
    As I have written many times before, Lingle is Jewish. She felt McCain/Palin would be better for Israel, than Obama. If she could have found anything, they would have used it with glee.I never get a response from Denialists whenever I post this. Wonder why?

    Of course, Jews are concerned about far more than Israel. Like all Americans, they are concerned about the economy, taxation, healthcare, etc. They have long had a tendency to prefer the Democrats, which is probably related to the fact that they tend to live in areas where the overwhelming majority of people prefer the values and policies of the Democratic Party to those of the Republican Party.

    I happen to be Jewish and happen to be a Democrat. My views on Israel are largely unrelated to my preference for the Democratic Party. Most Democratic politicians never bother saying that current Israeli policies are not only wrong, but the greatest existential threat to the long-term survival of the State of Israel.

    Of course, Laura Lingle is, unlike most Jews, a Republican. Given her party affiliation and the fact that she was among those discussed as a possible GOP Vice Presidential nominee, I think it’s abundantly clear that she would strongly prefer that Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. Had she any evidence that would humiliate Obama and take his campaign off message, she would have taken all reasonable endeavours to bring it to light, not cover it up. The fact that she is dismissive of the birthers reflects not only her belief that the birther movement is clearly wrong, but her conclusion that birtherism is electorally harmful to the GOP.

  37. avatar
    Steve October 10, 2010 at 8:08 pm #

    jamese777: I am still trying to figure out birther “logic” in explaning why a Republican Governor in Hawaii who campaigned for John McCain and delivered one of Sarah Palin’s nominating speeches at the Republican National Convention would put her political reputation and her future political career on the line in order to lie and cover for a liberal Democrat named Barack Hussein Obama II?“It’s been established, he was born here.”–Governor Of Hawai;i Linda Lingle (R)

    I’ve posed that question to birthers (most notably Garland Peterson on the Amazon forum) and I’ve never gotten a straight answer. He usually talks about how McCain would have been juust as bad, is a one-world government guy, etc. I know there’s a certain amount of cynicism about the two-party system and how much difference there may or may not be between the two parties, and many people feel “Republicans, Democrats, what’s the difference, they’re all out to screw us” but the main point (in this discussion) that Peterson cannot grasp is that there were two candidates for President with any realistic chance of winning. The governor of Hawaii endorsed the one who represented her party.That meant she wanted him to win and Obama to lose.I couldn’t get Peterson to explain why Gov. Lingle would publicly endorse one candidate and try to protect that candidate’s main rival by lying about the rival’s eligibility.

  38. avatar
    HORUS October 11, 2010 at 11:14 am #

    David: Lakin’s position has been to maintain that there are enough legitimate questions about Obama’s eligibility to support his conclusion that orders under Obama’s chain of command could be illegal and he would, therefore, be required to disobey them.

    You nuts still don’t understand that it is NOT Obama’s standing that would make orders illegal.
    Illegal Orders mean EXACTLY THAT, that an order is illegal if it makes you commit a crime as defined by CIVIL LAW!
    Obama’s standing has NOTHING to do with whether an order is illegal or not!

  39. avatar
    jamese777 October 11, 2010 at 11:52 am #

    Steve: I’ve posed that question to birthers (most notably Garland Peterson on the Amazon forum) and I’ve never gotten a straight answer. He usually talks about how McCain would have been juust as bad, is a one-world government guy, etc. I know there’s a certain amount of cynicism about the two-party system and how much difference there may or may not be between the two parties, and many people feel “Republicans, Democrats, what’s the difference, they’re all out to screw us” but the main point (in this discussion) that Peterson cannot grasp is that there were two candidates for President with any realistic chance of winning. The governor of Hawaii endorsed the one who represented her party.That meant she wanted him to win and Obama to lose.I couldn’t get Peterson to explain why Gov. Lingle would publicly endorse one candidate and try to protect that candidate’s main rival by lying about the rival’s eligibility.

    And that’s exactly why I put the word “logic” in quotes! I’ve been debating with a birther whose answer is that Lingle is a RINO because that’s the only way for a Repubiican to get elected in Hawai’i and that the Governor would be crucified in the liberal media if she didn’t support the “native son” of Hawai’i, Barack Obama.

  40. avatar
    Daniel October 11, 2010 at 7:36 pm #

    I’ve been wondering why the silence from Lakin’s new defense team? I would have thought they’d have made a statement designed to distance themselves from the birthers by now.

    Then it hit me…

    I think they may be keeping quiet, because Lakin may be pleading guilty come the next hearing.

    They may have decided that it was best to keep quiet about it until the plea is in, so as to avoid a complete blowout in Biferstan before the trial.

  41. avatar
    Rickey October 12, 2010 at 12:15 am #

    Daniel: I’ve been wondering why the silence from Lakin’s new defense team? I would have thought they’d have made a statement designed to distance themselves from the birthers by now.

    I believe that they are making a statement by not saying anything publicly.

    My guess is that it finally dawned upon Lakin that he is in serious trouble and that he was getting bad advice from Jensen. Somebody – possibly his Army attorney, possibly his family – must have gotten through to him. His new civilian attorneys presumably have no political axe to grind, so they should be quietly working with Lakin’s Army attorney to devise a strategy to get Lakin the best possible result. I doubt that the new strategy will involve going to trial, unless the Army absolutely refuses to bargain with them.

  42. avatar
    Rickey October 12, 2010 at 12:32 am #

    jamese777:
    I’ve been debating with a birther whose answer is that Lingle is a RINO because that’s the only way for a Repubiican to get elected in Hawai’i and that the Governor would be crucified in the liberal media if she didn’t support the “native son” of Hawai’i, Barack Obama.

    That’s a pretty lame argument by the birther. Lingle was elected to her second term as governor in 2006, and Hawai’i has a two-term limit, so even if the “liberal media” crucified her for outing Obama, there would have been no political repercussions for her. And that’s accepting the dubious proposition that if Obama truly was not born in Hawaii, anyone would criticize the governor for setting the record straight.

  43. avatar
    Bovril October 12, 2010 at 6:14 am #

    Not to mention of course that ‘Baggers and Birfoons swear blind that THEY are the vast majority being deliberately under-reported by the “LAme StrEem MEdia”….so why isn’t every damn pol pandering to their hysteria……?

  44. avatar
    DCH October 12, 2010 at 8:26 am #

    “I think they may be keeping quiet, because Lakin may be pleading guilty come the next hearing.

    They may have decided that it was best to keep quiet about it until the plea is in, so as to avoid a complete blowout in Biferstan before the trial.”

    That sounds about right. Going to trial is not going to change anything as the evidence that he disobeyed orders is quite clear, concrete, and not in dispute.

    All the birthers and dog-bite lawyers in the world don’t mean anything to the military court and never did.

    Did it ever occur to the birther-zombies that the court would consider them nothing more than a meaningless nuisance that would be conpletely ignored?

    As predicted on this baord, the birthers have had NO effect on LTC Latkin’s case and were quickly kicked to the curb by the judge’s rulings. The birther-lawyer Jensen has failed completely, he is the WORST of the birthers because his 100% predictible failures as only made his client’s situation worse.

  45. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 8:36 am #

    Rickey:
    That’s a pretty lame argument by the birther. Lingle was elected to her second term as governor in 2006, and Hawai’i has a two-term limit, so even if the “liberal media” crucified her for outing Obama, there would have been no political repercussions for her. And that’s accepting the dubious proposition that if Obama truly was not born in Hawaii, anyone would criticize the governor for setting the record straight.

    I believe that one of the reasons that Doc has continued this blog is interest in the psychological motivation of people who profess a continued belief in a theory. So, I would like to put forth my previous questioning concerning the reasoning of Lingle to make her famous statement:

    “It’s been an odd situation,” Lingle said, referring to the continuing controversy over the disputed natural-born citizenship of Obama. “This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country.

    “So I had my health director, who is a physician by background, go personally view the birth certificate in the birth records of the Department of Health, and we issued a news release at that time saying that the president was, in fact, born at Kapi’olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii. And that’s just a fact and yet people continue to call up and e-mail and want to make it an issue and I think it’s again a horrible distraction for the country by those people who continue this.”

    What was the communication to Chiyome Fukino on this when she ordered her to go personally view the birth certificate? I myself don’t have any doubts about the birthplace of Mr. Obama, but could you personally view the records and get back to me? What Gov. Lingle did was make a FOIA request (demand actually), which if a birther did, would not have been (and should not have been) answered. If the Governor wants to know what something says on a birth certificate, she can just ask and get the answer? CF never refuted Lingles’ comment. I was supposed to find her and the AG credible when a law was allegedly broken? (Kind of reminds me of Gloria Allred who outed her client for politics: LIngle outed Chiyome Fukino because who would have known the facts behind the October 2008 statement release?)

    If Governor Lingle was a McCain supporter, then certainly if Obama’s eligiblity continued to be at issue, so would be McCain’s. Although several legal scholars spoke out in his favor, only a court could officially make that determination, a distraction MCain did not need, even if the odds were against a case ever being heard. MCain should have presented his birth certificate IMO. (Can you imagine if the internet and all other technology, even DNA, was available since the birth of our country the kind of attacks there would have been on all fronts against opponents?)

    Governor Lingle never claimed to have seen anything. She did not break the law by asking for something she was not entitled to. We know who did do something wrong. So, I am not pulling stuff out of an orifice for the distrust I had of Fukino.

    Again, that was my thinking at the time, except for the Gloria Allred example.

  46. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 12, 2010 at 9:04 am #

    Steve: I’ve posed that question to birthers (most notably Garland Peterson on the Amazon forum) and I’ve never gotten a straight answer. He usually talks about how McCain would have been juust as bad, is a one-world government guy, etc. I know there’s a certain amount of cynicism about the two-party system and how much difference there may or may not be between the two parties, and many people feel “Republicans, Democrats, what’s the difference, they’re all out to screw us” but the main point (in this discussion) that Peterson cannot grasp is that there were two candidates for President with any realistic chance of winning. The governor of Hawaii endorsed the one who represented her party.That meant she wanted him to win and Obama to lose.I couldn’t get Peterson to explain why Gov. Lingle would publicly endorse one candidate and try to protect that candidate’s main rival by lying about the rival’s eligibility.

    Garland is also full of crap. I did a google search on his tag and quickly came across all the other forums since 2008 that he had been frequenting with his anti-obama propaganda. I saw a few instances where he wholeheartedly supported McCain and even defended McCain against the naysayers on the right. So its hard to take him seriously when he tries this now. It reminds me of the people who followed George W. Bush off a cliff and now try to claim oh well both parties are bad lets get rid of all of them.

  47. avatar
    Keith October 12, 2010 at 9:12 am #

    What was the communication to Chiyome Fukino on this when she ordered her to go personally view the birth certificate? I myself don’t have any doubts about the birthplace of Mr. Obama, but could you personally view the records and get back to me? What Gov. Lingle did was make a FOIA request (demand actually), which if a birther did, would not have been (and should not have been) answered. If the Governor wants to know what something says on a birth certificate, she can just ask and get the answer?

    Lingle asked her subordinate to check it out. That subordinate is specifically authorized to view the records as the official records keeper. There was nothing illegal about the request, and their was nothing illegal about the answer Fukino gave to the Governor.

    As I understand it Governor is not authorized to see the archived source document, but Fukino is authorized to see it. Ensuring the validity of vital records data that has been computerized is part of Fukino’s job description and to do that she must be able to inspect the source documents.

    The Governor is, obviously, entitled to ask Fukino for status reports on the error rates during data loads and other administration level information about the effectiveness of her department. Double checking a high profile document to ensure that a problem isn’t going to turn around and bite the department and Government in the ass, and embarrass the State of Hawai’i is a pretty reasonable thing to do. The Governor is certainly entitled to ask for that double check, and is entitled to an answer that either the data is correct or that there are problems that need to be corrected.

    Lingle and Fukino would not have said the data was good and matched the BC that Obama published during the campaign unless it was indeed good. Lingle may not be able to run for Governor again, but she can run for the Senate or other office. It just beggars belief that she would lie about something that would make her radioactive for the rest of her life.

  48. avatar
    Keith October 12, 2010 at 9:14 am #

    Keith: What was the communication to Chiyome Fukino on this when she ordered her to go personally view the birth certificate? I myself don’t have any doubts about the birthplace of Mr. Obama, but could you personally view the records and get back to me? What Gov. Lingle did was make a FOIA request (demand actually), which if a birther did, would not have been (and should not have been) answered. If the Governor wants to know what something says on a birth certificate, she can just ask and get the answer?

    This paragraph from my comment above was supposed to be blockquoted from charo. Oops.

  49. avatar
    gorefan October 12, 2010 at 11:32 am #

    charo: We know who did do something wrong.

    I’m confused by this are you saying some one did something wrong? Who?

    Since we don’t know specifically what Governor Lingle was told how do we know she wasn’t just given index data information?

    “(d) 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.”

    Can a director authorize to make available to the public other data on a case by case basis? I’m not necessarily asking you, charo, but just in general if anyone knows the answer.

  50. avatar
    Majority Will October 12, 2010 at 11:55 am #

    “We know who did do something wrong.”

    No, you don’t.

  51. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 12:40 pm #

    Keith: Lingle asked her subordinate to check it out.

    Why? It had nothing to do with the running of the state.

    Keith: It just beggars belief that she would lie about something that would make her radioactive for the rest of her life.

    She did not see anything to lie about.

  52. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    Keith: Double checking a high profile document to ensure that a problem isn’t going to turn around and bite the department and Government in the ass,

    So she didn’t want to take FactCheck as a definitive source?

  53. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 12, 2010 at 2:03 pm #

    charo: ? What Gov. Lingle did was make a FOIA request (demand actually), which if a birther did, would not have been (and should not have been) answered. If the Governor wants to know what something says on a birth certificate, she can just ask and get the answer? CF never refuted Lingles’ comment. I was supposed to find her and the AG credible when a law was allegedly broken

    No laws were broken. The Governor did NOT make a FOIA request — FOIA is a federal statute governing access that members of the public have to documents kept by the federal government. The Governor of the state of Hawaii, acting in her official capacity, asked a subordinate to check records held by the state. Even though those records are protected from public disclosure, that does not prevent a government official from inspecting them for valid reasons. In Obama’s case, he had posted a copy of his COLB online and made it available for outsiders (Factcheck) to inspect. Claims had also been circulated online that documented posted by Obama was a fraudulent. If in fact Obama had [i]not[/i] been born in Hawaii, and had phonied up a birth certificate (as the birthers claimed), then it would have been a felony under Hawaii law — so there was a legitimate state government interest in checking records to confirm that the COLB reflected the records on hand.

    I think it’s rather hilarious that birthers make such a big deal about wanting the records released, but when state officials (health dept. director, governor) — make public statements about the very same records, they turn around and complain that the officials are violating the law to look at the very records they are charged with maintaining — and therefore should be mistrusted.

    It really deserves a spot pretty far up the list of stupidest and most inane birther arguments.

  54. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 2:12 pm #

    Two things:

    First, I am not a birther anymore. I came to my conclusion after the Strunk FOIA records were released.

    Second, I didn’t mean FOIA, I meant the Hawaiian statute.

    “Even though those records are protected from public disclosure, that does not prevent a government official from inspecting them for valid reasons.”

    Is that a valid reason for the Governor to get involved? Her reason then, was that she was a birther with authority?

  55. avatar
    Majority Will October 12, 2010 at 2:16 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    No laws were broken. The Governor did NOT make a FOIA request — FOIA is a federal statute governing access that members of the public have to documents kept by the federal government.The Governor of the state of Hawaii, acting in her official capacity, asked a subordinate to check records held by the state. Even though those records are protected from public disclosure, that does not prevent a government official from inspecting them for valid reasons.In Obama’s case, he had posted a copy of his COLB online and made it available for outsiders (Factcheck) to inspect.Claims had also been circulated online that documented posted by Obama was a fraudulent. If in fact Obama had [i]not[/i] been born in Hawaii, and had phonied up a birth certificate (as the birthers claimed), then it would have been a felony under Hawaii law — so there was a legitimate state government interest in checking records to confirm that the COLB reflected the records on hand.I think it’s rather hilarious that birthers make such a big deal about wanting the records released, but when state officials (health dept. director, governor) — make public statements about the very same records, they turn around and complain that the officials are violating the law to look at the very records they are charged with maintaining — and therefore should be mistrusted.It really deserves a spot pretty far up the list of stupidest and most inane birther arguments.

    Well stated.

    “It really deserves a spot pretty far up the list of stupidest and most inane birther arguments.”

    Yes, it does.

  56. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 12, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    charo: Two things:First, I am not a birther anymore. I came to my conclusion after the Strunk FOIA records were released.Second, I didn’t mean FOIA, I meant the Hawaiian statute.“Even though those records are protected from public disclosure, that does not prevent a government official from inspecting them for valid reasons.”Is that a valid reason for the Governor to get involved? Her reason then, was that she was a birther with authority?

    No it was because birthers kept making inquiries and she wanted to put the issue to rest. Little did she know that it didn’t change the birthers’ flawed thinking

  57. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 12, 2010 at 2:25 pm #

    charo: Is that a valid reason for the Governor to get involved?

    There was an allegation of a crime being committed. (Forgery of state records). The Governor of a state would have a legitimate interest in requesting appropriate subordinate state authorities to investigate to such a claim; I suppose she could have asked the state attorney general to check it out as well.

    Obviously the allegation was baseless, but law enforcement officials frequently have to investigate allegations that turn out to be baseless.

    Please tell me what law you think the Governor violated?

  58. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 2:30 pm #

    I don’t think the Governor violated any law. IMO, C. Fukino did, unless Governor Lingle had the express authority to order Fukino to personally view the birth certificate for a specific reason. It wasn’t wrong for her to ask; it was wrong for the order to be followed. There was no court order.

  59. avatar
    Rickey October 12, 2010 at 2:37 pm #

    charo:Is that a valid reason for the Governor to get involved?

    Yes. Her Department of Health was being inundated with demands for Obama’s “long form” birth certificate, at a great cost in productivity and expense. She hoped to put an end to it by confirming that Obama was born in Hawaii. That didn’t stop the birthers, so she had to resort to getting the law changed to allow DOH to ignore further requests.

    The State of Hawaii owns the records, and the State can authorize state employees to look at them without an authorization from the individual involved. Some state employee had to look at Obama’s original birth certificate when the information was put into DOH’s database. Do you think that Hawaii asked for Obama’s permission first? Of course not. In addition, the State certifies that the information contained in a COLB is a true abstract of the information on the original birth certificate. How can anyone certify that a COLB is true if that person can’t compare the information on the COLB with the original?

  60. avatar
    Rickey October 12, 2010 at 2:42 pm #

    charo: I don’t think the Governor violated any law.IMO, C. Fukino did, unless Governor Lingle had the express authority to order Fukino to personally view the birth certificate for a specific reason.It wasn’t wrong for her to ask; it was wrong for the order to be followed.There was no court order.

    There was no need for a court order. As the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Dr. Fukino is authorized to review any records in the custody of DOH.

    It’s like your medical records. I can’t obtain your medical records without an authorization signed by you, but the custodian of records at your doctor’s office can look at them at any time without your express permission. If you are treated in a hospltal, the hospital’s Chief of Staff can review your records at any time.

  61. avatar
    Majority Will October 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm #

    charo: I don’t think the Governor violated any law.IMO, C. Fukino did, unless Governor Lingle had the express authority to order Fukino to personally view the birth certificate for a specific reason.It wasn’t wrong for her to ask; it was wrong for the order to be followed.There was no court order.

    “it was wrong for the order to be followed. There was no court order.”

    Are you an attorney?

    IMO, C. Fukino did.

    Interesting opinion. Is this based on your extensive law education and expertise in state law?

  62. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 2:45 pm #

    It’s like your medical records. I can’t obtain your medical records without an authorization signed by you, but the custodian of records at your doctor’s office can look at them at any time without your express permission.

    Rickey:
    There was no need for a court order. As the Director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, Dr. Fukino is authorized to review any records in the custody of DOH.
    It’s like your medical records. I can’t obtain your medical records without an authorization signed by you, but the custodian of records at your doctor’s office can look at them at any time without your express permission. If you are treated in a hospltal, the hospital’s Chief of Staff can review your records at any time.

    Can you cite authority for the notion that the Governor can order the director to view a birth certificate?

  63. avatar
    richCares October 12, 2010 at 3:04 pm #

    Can you cite authority for the notion that the Governor can order the director to view a birth certificate?
    .
    Please tells why is this is an issue, I don’t understand your basis for this question. At this point in time why would you care?

  64. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 3:09 pm #

    richCares: Can you cite authority for the notion that the Governor can order the director to view a birth certificate?
    .
    Please tells why is this is an issue, I don’t understand your basis for this question. At this point in time why would you care?

    When I saw the discussion above about Linda Lingle, I gave my 2 cents like everyone else here does. There is a specific statute in play here:

    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.

    Direct and tangible interest is determined by HRS §338-18(b). This statute may be accessed on the state legislative website at:
    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06/Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS 0338-0018.htm

  65. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 3:16 pm #

    If the Governor falls outside of the statute, then I will gladly stand corrected.

  66. avatar
    richCares October 12, 2010 at 3:23 pm #

    If the Governor falls outside of the statute, then I will gladly stand corrected
    .
    again why would you care, is this your way of discrediting the governor, what is the purpose of your objection. this is a mute issue except for you, now why is that?

  67. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 3:26 pm #

    richCares: again why would you care, is this your way of discrediting the governor, what is the purpose of your objection. this is a mute issue except for you, now why is that?

    This whole blog is moot, so what is the point of anyone responding?

  68. avatar
    Dr Kenneth Noisewater (Bob Ross) October 12, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

    charo: This whole blog is moot, so what is the point of anyone responding?

    “I’m not a birther anymore ill just continue talking like one”

  69. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 3:31 pm #

    I’m not ill.

  70. avatar
    richCares October 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm #

    “I’m not a birther anymore ill just continue talking like one”
    .
    I guess asking “…why is that” was much too difficult to answer so I get a snark.

  71. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm #

    richCares: “I’m not a birther anymore ill just continue talking like one”
    .
    I guessasking “…why is that” was much too difficult to answer so I get a snark.

    It seemed like a snarky question so I apologize. I’ll get back to you.

  72. avatar
    Rickey October 12, 2010 at 3:56 pm #

    charo: Can you cite authority for the notion that the Governor can order the director to view a birth certificate?

    The governor is the Chief Executive of the State, and can issue whatever orders she wants, unless said orders are prohibited by law.

    Dr. Fukino is the head of the Department of Health and Governor Lingle is Dr. Fukino’s boss. Governor Lingle merely asked for confirmation that Obama was born in Hawaii. Since that information is available through Hawaii’s birth index, Dr. Fukino did not divulge any confidential information when she assured Governor Lingle that Obama was indeed born there.

  73. avatar
    gorefan October 12, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

    charo: It wasn’t wrong for her to ask; it was wrong for the order to be followed.

    Wait, are you saying that the director of the DOH cannot go any look at a vital record? It is kinda the directors job to maintain them and if she should receive information that of a possible problem, wouldn’t it be derelict of her not to go and review it?

  74. avatar
    gorefan October 12, 2010 at 4:40 pm #

    charo: I can’t obtain your medical records without an authorization signed by you,

    Is that also true for kindergarten records?

  75. avatar
    richCares October 12, 2010 at 4:42 pm #

    Gorefan:
    Birthers tend to denigrate those that don’t accept Birtherism, they attack and call judges traitors and other bad names, the same applies to their comments on Gov. Lingle. Since Gov. Lingle voilated the law according to Charo then why believe her story. That’s the issue! They never address the issue, they just attack the messenger.

  76. avatar
    Keith October 12, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    charo: Keith: Lingle asked her subordinate to check it out.

    Why? It had nothing to do with the running of the state.

    .

    Yes it does. Maintaining the integrity of the State’s vital statistics is absolutely part of ‘running the State’.

    Keith: It just beggars belief that she would lie about something that would make her radioactive for the rest of her life.

    She did not see anything to lie about.

    Correct, and she wouldn’t have lied about it if a discrepancy had been found. She would have milked it for every bit of political hay she could. Finding out that Obama was ineligible would have put her on the national stage.

    Fukino looked at the source document and saw that it matched what had been loaded into the database. Everybody did their job correctly and there was nothing out of place.

    charo: Keith: Double checking a high profile document to ensure that a problem isn’t going to turn around and bite the department and Government in the ass,

    So she didn’t want to take FactCheck as a definitive source?

    FactCheck didn’t see the source document.

    They saw the official, legal, State issued certified copy of the data on the source document. Some people were calling that official State document into question, so the only agency authorized to compare the data in the source document to the copy did so.

    That really isn’t so hard to understand. Some people were challenging the competency of the State records office, so like the professionals they are, they double-checked their work.

  77. avatar
    gorefan October 12, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    richCares: Gov. Lingle

    I think she is calling Dr. Fukino bad names but I understand your point.

  78. avatar
    Majority Will October 12, 2010 at 7:15 pm #

    gorefan:
    I think she is calling Dr. Fukino bad names but I understand your point.

    It’s sickening, amateurish and baseless FUD like all birther b.s.

  79. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 12, 2010 at 8:07 pm #

    charo:
    There is a specific statute in play here: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.

    The DOH director gave Governor Lingle the EXACT SAME information that was also issued in the form of a public statement — they CONFIRMED that the Hawaii health dept had the original records on file to back up the public index data, that in turn documented Obama’s birth in Hawaii. The law prohibits the Dept from permitting inspection, making copies, or disclosing information in the records — it does NOT in any way prohibit them from confirming that they have a particular document in their possession.

    I think it’s fair to assume that the DOH consulted with the state Attorney General as to the bounds of the law before issuing either of the TWO public statements they issued, in writing, and posted on their web site.

    So if you are arguing the DOH broke the law by *confirming* to Gov. Lingle that they had the actual record on file — you are mistaken in your interpretation of the law. Nothing in the law prevents them from confirming the existence of a record without actually releasing the record, or disclosing private information thereon.

    If you are arguing that the director of the DOH would be precluded from inspecting the very records that fall under her authority… then you are missing the point as to what the function of the agency and its director is. Dr. Fukino could spend all day every day sifting through and reading birth certificates on file in her office if she wanted to — it is HER JOB to maintain those records. Part of the function of certifying records is being able to validate that the records being certified exist. So the simple fact that the record had been requested by an outsider would be enough to give the Department authority to be looking at or checking the record.

    Even if the request came from a birther — the Department’s function in maintaining a record is separate from their function in deciding whether to disclose or release it. So given that the office was being deluged with requests, it might have been very expedient — and proper — to (a) make sure the records were in order just in case a proper request came in, while at the same time (b) denying access to anyone who made improper requests. It certainly would have been logical for Dr. Fukino to anticipate that she might be subject to a court order to produce the record, or a subpena to come into court and testify about the records — and it would have been equally logical for her boss, the Governor of the State, to anticipate the same thing.

    Your rationale really reinforces the folly of Obama or anyone else trying to please the birthers. On the one hand there is a big ruckus raised about wanting the birth certificate released… but as soon as the OFFICIALS in charge of the OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT come out with a statement confirming the exact information that the birthers claim they want… then all of the sudden they are crying foul and rejecting the source.

    If birthers really wanted to know then they would have counted it as a victory back in 2008 when the DOH issued its first statement.

  80. avatar
    Majority Will October 12, 2010 at 8:29 pm #

    Expelliarmus:
    So if you are arguing the DOH broke the law by *confirming* to Gov. Lingle that they had the actual record on file — you are mistaken in your interpretation of the law.

    But I thought charo was a qualified legal expert with an extensive background in and knowledge of state laws and Hawaiian statutes. The next attorney general?

    charo: “We know who did do something wrong.”

    Yet, I’m still not sure who charo means as “we.”

    Is it a group of legal scholars? A book club? A clandestine cabal?

  81. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 8:41 pm #

    Expelliarmus: Nothing in the law prevents them from confirming the existence of a record without actually releasing the record, or disclosing private information thereon.

    That is why I could not understand why there was a refusal to answer whether or not there was a transaction for the COLB published on the internet. But this is digging into old issues.

    Expelliarmus:
    The DOH director gave Governor Lingle the EXACT SAME information that was also issued in the form of a public statement — they CONFIRMED that the Hawaii health dept had the original records on file to back up the public index data, that in turn documented Obama’s birth in Hawaii. The law prohibits the Dept from permitting inspection, making copies, or disclosing information in the records — it does NOT in any way prohibit them from confirming that they have a particular document in their possession.I think it’s fair to assume that the DOH consulted with the state Attorney General as to the bounds of the law before issuing either of the TWO public statements they issued, in writing, and posted on their web site.So if you are arguing the DOH broke the law by *confirming* to Gov. Lingle that they had the actual record on file — you are mistaken in your interpretation of the law. Nothing in the law prevents them from confirming the existence of a record without actually releasing the record, or disclosing private information thereon.
    If you are arguing that the director of the DOH would be precluded from inspecting the very records that fall under her authority… then you are missing the point as to what the function of the agency and its director is. Dr. Fukino could spend all day every day sifting through and reading birth certificates on file in her office if she wanted to — it is HER JOB to maintain those records. Part of the function of certifying records is being able to validate that the records being certified exist. So the simple fact that the record had been requested by an outsider would be enough to give the Department authority to be looking at or checking the record.
    Even if the request came from a birther — the Department’s function in maintaining a record is separate from their function in deciding whether to disclose or release it. So given that the office was being deluged with requests, it might have been very expedient — and proper — to (a) make sure the records were in order just in case a proper request came in, while at the same time (b) denying access to anyone who made improper requests.It certainly would have been logical for Dr. Fukino to anticipate that she might be subject to a court order to produce the record, or a subpena to come into court and testify about the records — and it would have been equally logical for her boss, the Governor of the State, to anticipate the same thing.
    Your rationale really reinforces the folly of Obama or anyone else trying to please the birthers.On the one hand there is a big ruckus raised about wanting the birth certificate released… but as soon as the OFFICIALS in charge of the OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT come out with a statement confirming the exact information that the birthers claim they want… then all of the sudden they are crying foul and rejecting the source.If birthers really wanted to know then they would have counted it as a victory back in 2008 when the DOH issued its first statement.

    What you are stating is logical; however, I was going by the reading of the statute which specifically lays out who is a party of interest.

    Expelliarmus: Your rationale really reinforces the folly of Obama or anyone else trying to please the birthers. On the one hand there is a big ruckus raised about wanting the birth certificate released… but as soon as the OFFICIALS in charge of the OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT come out with a statement confirming the exact information that the birthers claim they want… then all of the sudden they are crying foul and rejecting the source.

    I rejected the official statement until I saw the confirmation in the FOIA records. And this next statement is for Richcares in answer to his query. Doc seems interested in the birther mindset. I gave you mine in the past tense.

  82. avatar
    charo October 12, 2010 at 8:54 pm #

    Keith: That really isn’t so hard to understand. Some people were challenging the competency of the State records office, so like the professionals they are, they double-checked their work.

    Governor Lingle said it was a distraction for the campaign so she told C. Fukino to personally look at the records.

  83. avatar
    dunstvangeet October 12, 2010 at 9:38 pm #

    charo: That is why I could not understand why there was a refusal to answer whether or not there was a transaction for the COLB published on the internet. But this is digging into old issues.

    Because they probably don’t keep records for that stuff past a certain time, and probably not more than a year is needed before the records are destroyed for any audit sort of things. I doubt that the Hawaii Department of Health has records covering a $10 charge to a credit card for more than a year. And I doubt that their job is to maintain the financial transactions of it.

    Plus it is unneeded. The very fact of the COLB being issued proves that there was a transaction on that. The Hawaii Department of Health continually verified it.

  84. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 12, 2010 at 10:49 pm #

    charo: That is why I could not understand why there was a refusal to answer whether or not there was a transaction for the COLB published on the internet. But this is digging into old issues

    To start with, that’s totally irrelevant to anything. There is no chance whatsoever that they would ever be called upon to produce receipt, and whether or not the proper fees were paid are totally irrelevant to the issue of whether they have original records on file.

    Since they verified that the original records are on file — there is no possible reason under any possible theory that anyone could possibly care whether or not the requisite fees for production of a certified copy were paid or who paid them.

  85. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 12, 2010 at 10:55 pm #

    charo: What you are stating is logical; however, I was going by the reading of the statute which specifically lays out who is a party of interest.

    When the legislators were drafting the law they didn’t anticipate that there would be anyone on the planet so stupid as to think a law specifying the rules of disclosure of documents by an agency could possibly be interpreted so as to prevent the people who run the agency from looking at their own records.

  86. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 13, 2010 at 12:10 am #

    dunstvangeet: Because they probably don’t keep records for that stuff past a certain time, and probably not more than a year is needed before the records are destroyed for any audit sort of things. I doubt that the Hawaii Department of Health has records covering a $10 charge to a credit card for more than a year. And I doubt that their job is to maintain the financial transactions of it.

    The DoH does not accept credit cards or personal checks, only bank checks or money orders.

    [The preceding comment is incorrect. Hawaii now accepts credit cards. The fee, however, is $11.50 when paying by credit card.]

  87. avatar
    SueDB October 13, 2010 at 4:27 am #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The DoH does not accept credit cards or personal checks, only bank checks or money orders.

    Pretty much cash and carry. Good thing when you deal with birfers.

  88. avatar
    SueDB October 13, 2010 at 4:28 am #

    According to every military lawyer I have spoken with, LTC Lakin is toast, so all of the is moot as far as the subject is concerned.

  89. avatar
    Keith October 13, 2010 at 6:06 am #

    charo: Governor Lingle said it was a distraction for the campaign so she told C. Fukino to personally look at the records.

    I don’t understand the point of this post in relation to my comment. Is it supposed to be a rebuttal?

    I can’t see how it is contradictory.

  90. avatar
    Majority Will October 13, 2010 at 8:45 am #

    charo:
    Governor Lingle said it was a distraction for the campaign so she told C. Fukino to personally look at the records.

    To have ever accused Dr. Fukino of wrongdoing based on presumptive, non-authoritative and erroneous accusations is despicable.

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

  91. avatar
    Majority Will October 13, 2010 at 9:00 am #

    charo:
    Governor Lingle said it was a distraction for the campaign so she told C. Fukino to personally look at the records.

    I don’t think you are mentally challenged. I think you are too stubborn and proud to admit you were wrong.

    Dissonance is painful.

  92. avatar
    Rickey October 13, 2010 at 12:02 pm #

    charo:
    Governor Lingle said it was a distraction for the campaign so she told C. Fukino to personally look at the records.

    You are misquoting her. She never said that it was a distraction for any campaign. She said that it kept coming up during the campaign, but that it was a distraction “from the more critical issues that are facing the country.”

    Dr. Fukino’s press release makes it clear that her review of the birth certificate was in response to the “numerous requests” which the State had received.

    “There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, 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 Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
    “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

  93. avatar
    jamese777 October 13, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

    Rickey: You are misquoting her. She never said that it was a distraction for any campaign. She said that it kept coming up during the campaign, but that it was a distraction “from the more critical issues that are facing the country.”Dr. Fukino’s press release makes it clear that her review of the birth certificate was in response to the “numerous requests” which the State had received.“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.“Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, 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 Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.“No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

    The context for Governor Lingle’s statement was that she was in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain.
    Anyone who thinks that separating “the more critical issues facing the country” from what should be discussed in a presidential campaign is attempting to parse her words in the extreme, and unsuccessfully attempting to hide her words: “this issue kept coming up so much in the campaign.”

    Governor Lingle was clearly stating that birtherism was a distraction from what a presidential campaign should be focusing on. In order to get back to discussing the real, serious issues facing the country.

    Lingle hoped to end birtherism by having Dr. Fukino and Alvin T. Onaka, Ph.D., the Registrar of Vital Statistics go view Obama’s vault copy birth certificate and report back to her whatever they found.
    Dr. Fukino did just that along with Dr. Onaka and then Dr. Fukino issued her first statement in late October of 2008 and a followup, more direct statement in July of 2009.
    In the second statement Dr. Fukino named Barack Obama as a “natural born American citizen.”

  94. avatar
    Majority Will October 13, 2010 at 1:04 pm #

    Rickey:
    You are misquoting her. She never said that it was a distraction for any campaign. She said that it kept coming up during the campaign, but that it was a distraction “from the more critical issues that are facing the country.”Dr. Fukino’s press release makes it clear that her review of the birth certificate was in response to the “numerous requests” which the State had received.“There have been numerous requests for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama’s official birth certificate. State law (Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-18) prohibits the release of a certified birth certificate to persons who do not have a tangible interest in the vital record.
    “Therefore, I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, 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 Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama’s original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures.
    “No state official, including Governor Linda Lingle, has ever instructed that this vital record be handled in a manner different from any other vital record in the possession of the State of Hawaii.”

    Misquoting and taking statements and actions out of context either intentionally or not is a classic trademark for birthers.

    For the hate driven, it is always intentional and at times taken to the point of insanity.

  95. avatar
    misha October 13, 2010 at 2:26 pm #

    Lupin: The Rosenbergs were also “honorable but confused”.

    misha: They were executed because of communist hysteria, and because they were Jewish.

    I made an accusation, and would like to amplify that. Klaus Fuchs was equally involved.

    He was released from prison on June23, 1959, after serving nine years and four months of his sentence. He died at home of old age. He was the son a Lutheran pastor.

  96. avatar
    Expelliarmus October 13, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    The DoH does not accept credit cards or personal checks, only bank checks or money orders.

    That’s not true. It says right on their web site that credit cards payment is accepted for internet orders — see http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html — “Fees must be paid by a charge to a credit card for requests made through the Internet.”

  97. avatar
    Rickey October 13, 2010 at 2:47 pm #

    jamese777:
    The context for Governor Lingle’s statement was that she was in the mainland campaigning for Senator McCain.

    You’re mistaken about the time frame. Governor Lingle made her “distraction” comment while she was being interviewed on WABC radio on May 2, 2010, long after the campaign was over.

    Dr. Fukino issued her press release shortly before Election Day in 2008, but her press release makes no reference to the campaign.

    I don’t believe that the birther issue was in any way a meaningful distraction to the campaign. Obama paid no attention to it and McCain, to his credit, refused to embrace it.

  98. avatar
    Rickey October 13, 2010 at 4:50 pm #

    Lakin’s petition for extraordinary relief regarding discover has been denied. No surprise there. A .pdf copy of the order is here, but it was denied without comment so you may not want to bother.

    http://www.caaflog.com/wp-content/uploads/Lakin-ACCA-order.pdf

    More on today’s events here:

    http://www.caaflog.com/2010/10/13/accas-order-denying-ltc-lakins-petition-for-extraordinary-relief-trial-pushed-back/

    and here:

    http://court-martial-ucmj.com/lakin-2/ltc-lakin-sitrep-15/

    The trial has been pushed back to December 14. The continuance was granted to accommodate a conflict in attorney Puckett’s trial schedule. An issue was raised about multiplicity of charges, but Phil Cave indicates that it is easily resolved in a number of ways and will not affect the outcome.

  99. avatar
    FUTTHESHUCKUP October 13, 2010 at 4:59 pm #

    Oh boy, the old Donofrio argument again. Birthers go ’round in circles. Let’s put aside the fact that the State of Hawaii is not Podunk, Arkansas. Let’s also put aside the fact that Dr. Fukino is a highly trained professional who is well aware of her legal and occupational responsibilities. I don’t know if anyone has said this so far, but I’m going to say it again anyway. Hawaii state statute 338-18 clearly states:

    “(d) 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.”

    http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.htm

    Since Dr. Fukino is said director as referred to in the statute, by law, she is allowed to authorize the release of the index data, and anyone who says she is not either has not read the law or read the law and chosen blindness. In fact, the index data that Donofrio claimed was a violation of the law is published on the Hawaii DOH website.

    “The index data regarding President Obama is:

    Birth Index
    Obama II, Barack Hussein
    Male”

    http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/obama.html

    I would like to do an experiment. Take a square peg and a round hole into the deepest jungles of Africa, give them to any given member of the primate species, and see if it takes it two years to figure out that it’s just not going to fit.

  100. avatar
    Majority Will October 13, 2010 at 9:08 pm #

    charo:
    Governor Lingle said it was a distraction for the campaign so she told C. Fukino to personally look at the records.

    Do you have an actual point based in reality?

  101. avatar
    jamese777 October 13, 2010 at 9:49 pm #

    Rickey: You’re mistaken about the time frame. Governor Lingle made her “distraction” comment while she was being interviewed on WABC radio on May 2, 2010, long after the campaign was over.Dr. Fukino issued her press release shortly before Election Day in 2008, but her press release makes no reference to the campaign.I don’t believe that the birther issue was in any way a meaningful distraction to the campaign. Obama paid no attention to it and McCain, to his credit, refused to embrace it.

    Yes, I am aware of when the Governor did the radio interview with the Rabbi. However in that interview she was reflecting on the circumstances that caused her to want Dr. Fukino and Dr. Onaka to go and check Obama’s vault copy, long form, original birth record.
    You have your opinion on the impact of the birther issue on the campaign, and Governor Lingle has a different opinion. I remember that embarrassing moment for Senator McCain in the campaign in Wisconsin at a town hall meeting when a woman told Senator McCain that Obama wasn’t an American and that he was “an Arab.” McCain was forced to defend Obama against the charge. Not the sort of thing you want to be doing when you are trying to defeat an opponent.
    “McCain backer calls Obama ‘an Arab'”.
    http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/10/10/McCain-backer-calls-Obama-Arab/UPI-54541223648680/

  102. avatar
    Rickey October 14, 2010 at 12:28 am #

    jamese777:
    Not the sort of thing you want to be doing when you are trying to defeat an opponent.

    I admit that I hadn’t given much thought to the idea of birther talk being a distraction to McCain’s campaign.

  103. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 14, 2010 at 8:00 am #

    Expelliarmus: That’s not true. It says right on their web site that credit cards payment is accepted for internet orders — see http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/vital-records/vital_records.html — “Fees must be paid by a charge to a credit card for requests made through the Internet.”

    Hmmm. I wonder if that’s new (since January of 2009) or I just missed it before.

    This is actually rather interesting to me professionally because in most states online ordering with a credit card actually goes through a third party who takes the order, sends the State a check, and assumes all the risk for non-payment by the card. Hawaii’s meager fee ($1.50) for processing the credit card, is unusually low. I’ll have to check with “deep birther” at work on this one.