Replies

"Again HRS 388-18(d) provides the Director of the DOH broad discretionary authority to release any information she deems as appropriate, she can release non-certified copies of said records to the public, and the UIPA supports public interest ahead of personal privacy."

Again, neither HRS 388-18(d) nor UIPA gives the Director of the DOH the discretionary authority to break the clear letter of the law.

"The Kenyan-born Obama has been broadly reported and one of his own homies said he was born in Indonesia."

It does not matter what "has been broadly reported." It only matters what its true, and what is not. It is simply a lie that Obama's grandmother ever said he was born in Kenya. And what some "homie" says hardly satisfies any exception to the hearsay rule unless the "homie" was present at the birth.

"I don't see a hiring or termination dates of the these administrators in the news stories. Sometimes you have deputy administrators who may be acting as chief administrator in the absence of the full chief administrator."

Having actually worked in health care for most of my career, much of that time working with hospital executives, no you don't. A deputy administrator is a deputy administrator, even when filling in for the boss.

"This 'timing' issue is very similar in nature to the forkchunk.org photos of the alleged Obama COLB in that they contained embedded dates that were five months earlier than the pictures were claimed to be taken.

Nonsense. A date stamp on a digital image says whatever the internal clock of the camera was set at. The date on a newspaper article reflects the date the article was released. There is no meaningful comparison.

"You said earlier that the State Department said the alleged COLB was 'absolute proof' of Obama's Hawaiian birth and natural born citizenship."

That was a reference to State Department regulations which have been in place since long before Obama was elected. They prescribe exactly what characteristics a document must hove to be proof of citizenship at birth. And Obama's COLB exceeds them.

"What you've cited is a standard denial of allegations, not a direct statement that Obama's alleged COLB is absolute proof of anything. To such an extent that they are issuing standard denials, they have said nothing affirmative about the COLB."

Nonsense.

The denials are explicitly that Strunk's claims (which you parrot) are false. They are denials made under oath by an organization in a position to know. If you read the entire response, you will have noted that the DOS and DHS do not hesitate to admit when they do not have the information necessary to be certain of their statements, and they then refuse to either deny or confirm; they do exactly that several times.

But not on the suitability of the COLB as legal proof of Obama's Hawaiian birth and natural born American citizenship. On that issue they come flat out and deny that Strunk is correct in his accusations.

And those are your accusations too, denied by the DOS.

Thay also deny that Obama was ever adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and that he was ever an Indonesian citizen.

And again... they do so under penalty of perjury.

Again, neither HRS 388-18(d) nor UIPA gives the Director of the DOH the discretionary authority to break the clear letter of the law.

HRS 338-18(d) says: "such other data as the director may authorize shall be made available to the public." UIPA 92F-14(a) says: "(a) Disclosure of a government record shall not constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if the public interest in disclosure outweighs the privacy interests of the individual." That would be check and mate.

It only matters what its true, and what is not.

No kidding. So why fight the disclosure of a record that doesn't need to be hidden??

It is simply a lie that Obama's grandmother ever said he was born in Kenya. And what some "homie" says hardly satisfies any exception to the hearsay rule unless the "homie" was present at the birth.

Until official documents are released, hearsay is all we have for claims of Hawaiian birth.

Having actually worked in health care for most of my career, much of that time working with hospital executives, no you don't. A deputy administrator is a deputy administrator, even when filling in for the boss.

So hearsay is okay when you say it?? Please.

Nonsense. A date stamp on a digital image says whatever the internal clock of the camera was set at. The date on a newspaper article reflects the date the article was released. There is no meaningful comparison.

Wrong. The meaningful comparison is that we don't have all the facts. You can't presume one instance disproves one thing while the other is legit. I'm on the side of having ALL the facts and not trying to guess.

That was a reference to State Department regulations which have been in place since long before Obama was elected. They prescribe exactly what characteristics a document must hove to be proof of citizenship at birth. And Obama's COLB exceeds them.

The denials said nothing about whether the state department personally inspected any documents. They sure as hell didn't say the COLB 'exceeds' anything. That's just fantasy.

And again... they do so under penalty of perjury.

These are denials of allegations not testimony of fact. There's a major difference. The allegations have to be proven. Denials don't. Sorry, but a denial is not affirmation of factuality, especially when there's no evidence that documents were inspected for accuracy, that the state department has full knowledge of the Soetoro/Dunham marital arrangement, etc. Don't make this so easy.