Posted on 08/05/2013 10:57:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Maybe it is something we should have known all along: Right-wing rocker Ted Nugent is a ‘birther!’
Last week, during one of his many anti-Obama rants, Nugent referred to President Obama’s “phony birth certificate” and then implied that Obama is a Muslim. Nugent was reacting to President Obama suggesting that some Republicans are spending too much time on what Obama called, the “phony scandals” of his administration.
Ted Nugent’s top reference to the claim that Barak Obama is not a U.S. citizen is Arizona’s Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Arpaio was one of the most outspoken public figures in suggesting that Obama’s birth certificate was a fake and that Obama was not born on U.S. soil.
The sheriff insisted that Obama was not born in the U.S., even after the White House released Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Sheriff Arpaio and countless far-right radio talk show hosts have been among the loudest ‘birther’ voices, which seemed to quiet down in 2011. The anti-Obama website, WND, continues to fuel the ‘birther’ and other conspiracies about Barak Obama.
If Barak Obama was not born on U.S. soil and has presented a phony birth certificate, then one question remains – why have the most powerful Republican leaders not pursued this controversy? Is it fair to say that the Republican Party’s top leaders have turned their backs on the conservative ‘birthers’ in America? And why would they do that?
I often speak about the “United States of Hysteria,” a nation within a nation that quickly becomes hysterical over certain issues. In my opinion, ‘birthers’ are citizens in the U.S.H. and have been riled up mostly by ridiculous and baseless Internet chat and blogs from those people who seem desperate to believe that any and all suspicions about Barak Obama are true.
‘Birthers’ should be more concerned about the leaders of the party they align themselves most closely with, rather than condemn what they call the ‘liberal media.’ If you are a ‘birther,’ where is your outage over the Republican Party’s abject failure to reveal that Barak Obama is not a U.S. citizen and should not be President of the United States? Unless, Republicans, too, are part of a big conspiracy!
For those who will be quick to criticize me for defending President Obama – let me set the record straight – this is not an attempt to defend Obama as much as it is an effort to defend myself as a radio talk show host. Criticism is something that is part of my business, but I try to avoid setting myself up for easy criticism by promoting a cause that has no legitimate credibility or force behind it.
During the election last year, ‘Birthers’ discredited the Republican Party with their dedication to a condemning campaign that was easily countered with facts. But that doesn’t mean there are not still many who refuse to believe the facts. Just because you don’t want something to be true, doesn’t mean it’s not true.
And if it was determined that Barak Obama is not a U.S. citizen, John McCain or Mitt Romney would not be president. VP Joe Biden would become president and with a swift signature he would keep in place every bill signed by President Obama.
Ted Nugent and all the other ‘birthers’ should focus their attention on legitimate criticism of the Obama Administration and not the phony claim that Obama was not born in Hawaii. I’m convinced that if there were photos of Obama’s head crowning during birth, there would still be those refusing to accept a truth they don’t want to be true.
And if you do have proof that Barak Obama is not a citizen – would you please forward it to my email address: Scoot@WWL.com? I would love to have that breaking news on my show first!
Never, as far as I recall. These people don’t let things like “facts” and “truth” slow them down.
It’s too bad that Obama’s birth certificate isn’t housed under Texas law.
Here’s a link to the Hawaii law governing access to a birth certificate:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrs2006/Vol06_Ch0321-0344/HRS0338/HRS_0338-0018.HTM
Note point 9 of the statute. Anyone who gets a judge to issue a court order for inspection of the original birth certificate can gain access. A congressional subpoena also has the same force of law as a judge’s court order. In five years no committee of Congress has ever issued a subpoena for inspection of Obama’s birth certificate.
Nero, helps if you can read before you try to make a pointless point. The law says a “court of competent jurisdiction.” IOW, the HI DOH can ignore any court that it doesn’t think is a court of competent jurisdiction. And how do you divine a congressional committee as a court of competent jurisdiction?? Congress is not a court.
Also, you’ve already shown in another thread how the DOH has gone out of its way to fight lawsuits that try to take advantage of one of Hawaii’s sunshine laws. I’m not seeing how Texas law would make them behave any differently.
Me too. I did my homework (enough, at a couple of thousand hours) on this issue, and am perfectly willing to talk to anyone I meet who will listen, about the ongoing fraud regarding this con man's theft of the Executive. You'd be surprised how many people have no clue, but whose jaws hit the floor when you explain just a sampling of the bs surrounding this dude.
:D at your comments
Question for Scoot re his statement.”... countless far-right radio talk show hosts...”
Which ones were EVER talking about o’s eligibility (or lack thereof)?
Edge919 conveniently omits that a CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA carries the same force of law as a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction.
“Congress can subpoena witnesses, or force them to testify under oath, before its committees. This authority comes from the Constitution’s grant to Congress of “all legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1). Witnesses are subpoenaed to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could subpoena even private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” Witnesses who refuse to respond to a congressional subpoena, or refuse to give information (unless they invoke their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) may be found in contempt of Congress and sent to prison.
The most famous use of the congressional subpoena occurred in 1973, when the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities (popularly known as the Watergate Committee) subpoenaed the tape recordings that President Richard M. Nixon had secretly made of White House conversations. This was the first time that Congress had ever subpoenaed a President. Nixon tried to withhold the tapes, claiming executive privilege (the right of the President not to release internal documents of the administration to the Congress). The courts ruled that the President could not use executive privilege as blanket protection, but the White House then released only a heavily edited version of the tapes. In June 1974, in United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege was a limited power and that the President must turn over all of the requested tapes to a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate incident. The opening of these tapes led Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against the President, causing Nixon to resign.”—Oxford Guide to the U.S. government
http://www.answers.com/topic/subpoena-power-of-congress#ixzz2bJ1ScXd4
Has there ever been a congressional investigation into Obama’s eligibility?
Imagine that, the Attorneys General of Hawaii, who is the attorney for HDOH (both the previous Republican A.G. and the current Democrat A.G.) defending the laws of the state of Hawaii and finding that judges of state courts, state appeals courts, the state Supreme Court and the U.S. District Court all agree with their position that privacy/tangible interest provisions of Hawaii Revised Statute 338-18 take precedence over UIPA requests for OPEN records.
“The state of Hawaii has stated that the President was born there, that’s good enough for me.”—John Boehner (R-OH) on Meet The Press.
Edge919 says: “Nero, helps if you can read before you try to make a pointless point. The law says a “court of competent jurisdiction.” IOW, the HI DOH can ignore any court that it doesn’t think is a court of competent jurisdiction. And how do you divine a congressional committee as a court of competent jurisdiction?? Congress is not a court.”
It is never a good idea to ignore ANY court, and back here in the real world, HDOH has responded to every legal challenge concerning Barack Obama’s vital records and they have responded, IN COURT.
Judges tend to get upset when they are ignored and they issue Contempt of Court citations which allow them to imprison anyone who defies their authority until the court is no longer ignored.
There have been twelve Obama birth certificate-related lawsuits filed against officials of the state government in Hawaii. Not all of them involved HDOH and not all of them were based on UIPA.
Constitution Party v. Governor Lingle. State of Hawaii Supreme Court: complaint contesting 2008 Presidential election results and contending that the Governor’s administration failed to require proof that candidate Barack Obama was qualified to be a candidate for President of the United States. Dismissed; reconsideration, Dismissed. 12/2008.
Hamrick v. Health Director Fukino. US District Court, Hawaii: seeking a copy of Obama’s certified birth certificate to determine whether he is natural born citizen); Dismissed, 5/2009.
Justice v. Health Director Fuddy. Hawaii state Circuit Court: seeking access to records relevant to Obama’s eligibility, Dismissed; Dismissal affirmed, Hawaii Court of Appeals. 10/2009 & 4/2011.
Martin v. Governor Lingle. Hawaii state District Court: seeking to compel disclosure of Obama’s birth records based on challenge to his eligibility. Dismissed; Hawaii Court of Appeals, Dismissed; Hawaii Supreme Court, Writ Denied. 1/2009 & 8/2009.
Martin v. Attorney General Bennett. Hawaii state District Court: seeking to compel disclosure of Obama’s birth records based on challenge to his eligibility; Dismissed; 9/2010.
Sunahara v. Hawaii Department of Health. Hawaii state District Court: complaint seeking access to birth/death records of Virginia Sunahara based on connection to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed, Appeal pending. 3/2012.
Taitz v Astrue. U.S. District Court, Hawaii: ex parte application to compel discovery regarding Obama’s eligibility in a related case in the District of Columbia; 10/2011.
Taitz v. Health Director Fuddy (Freedom of Information Act). Hawaii state Circuit Court: appeal of agency refusal to grant access to documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed; Rehearing Denied; petition for reciprocal subpoena enforcement, Denied; Ex-Parte Amended Motion for Reconsideration, Denied. 11/2011 & 2/2012
Taitz v Obama. Hawaii Office of Elections: petition seeking to challenge Obama’s eligibility to be on 2012 ballot and demand for an emergency hearing on this challenge; Petition rejected. 12/2011.
Taitz v Judge Rhonda A. Nishimura. Hawaii Supreme Court; petition for a Writ of Mandamus to force Circuit Court Judge Nishimura to issue a court order forcing the Hawaii Department of Health to grant access to birth vital records related to Obama’s eligibility. Petition Denied. 1/2012.
Thomas v Hosemann. US District Court, Hawaii; action seeking to compel Hawaii Dept. of Health to provide access to documents related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 12/2008.
Wolf v Health Director Fuddy. Hawaii state Circuit Court; seeking to compel disclosure of documents allegedly related to Obama’s eligibility; Dismissed. 9/2011. Appeal to Hawaii Court of Appeals, Summary Disposition Order Affirmed by Intermediate Court of Appeals, 5/31/13.
Sorry, but you're making an irrelevant argument. The HI law is speaking specifically about a "court of competent jurisdiction." The subpoena power held by Congress still does NOT make it a court. You're desperation to make it equivalent is pointless because the partisan Congress is not going to subpoena the DOH for any Obama records.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for proving my point over and over. Knowing that the UIPA GIVES any HI agency the power to disclose virtually ANY record protected by other laws, show me the lawsuit where the HI DOH took advantage of that law to disclose Obama’s records, especially AFTER Gov. Abercrombie took office and pledged that he would find and disclose Obama’s alleged birth certificate?? When did they do it?? Why didn’t they do it and why did they fight EVERY attempt when they didn’t need to??
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.