Posted on 02/24/2010 6:02:13 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
I didn’t find it harsh in the least, and I’ve been saying many of the same things since mid-2008. It is kinda mind-blowing that there are still folks in this forum that will defend Orly Taitz as some kind of great American heroine.
I read and comprehend well enough to see that I said that I said the state of Illinois does maintain records and you replied that it does not.
But to the point. If you want his personal records, he is under no legal obligation to maintain those. So you will never see what he doesn't have.
Sure, let's get to that point.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, moderator Tim Russert asked Obama about the papers from his state legislative days, from 1997 to 2004.Obama first said, “We did not keep those records.”
He then elaborated: “Well, let’s be clear.
(snip)
“The stuff that I did not keep has to do with, for example, my schedule. I didn’t have a schedule. I was a state senator. I wasn’t intending to have the Barack Obama State Senate Library. I didn’t have 50 or 500 people to, to help me archive these issues.”
On Friday, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times reported that she had asked Obama at a news conference: “Do your state senate papers still exist? If they do, just where are they? And would you ever intend to make them public to be responsive to some requests?”
Sweet wrote that he replied: "Nobody has requested specific documents.”
But the Chicago Tribune has reported that it “requested documents from his time in Springfield and never received a response.”
And Sweet wrote of her own paper, “The Chicago Sun-Times has also been asking about Obama's papers.”
Russert pressed Obama, who has touted his service in Springfield as proof of his experience, about his records of meetings with lobbyists.
“I did not have a scheduler, but, as I said, every document related to my interactions with government is available right now,” Obama said. “And, as I said, news outlets have already looked at them.”
0baMao has clearly dissembled on the subject and his denial of having kept the records is couched in the semantics of "not archiving" them. He denies having any records but then answers someone else with "Nobody has requested specific documents” which obviously gives the impression that he has documents. His statement makes no sense if he does not.
During a campaign stop last fall, Obama at first claimed he did not have any records of his eight years in the Illinois state legislature. “I don't have — I don't maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records.”(snip)
However, according to a February 25th letter from the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State in response to Judicial Watch’s open records request, “The ISA does not maintain Senator Obama’s personal records or papers. [Nor] does the ISA maintain records generated by his office. In addition, the ISA has received no requests from Senator Obama to archive any records formerly in his possession.”
Clearly the implication here is that he had records. He would have had to in order to do anything at all. All politicians do. Whether he archived his records or shredded them is beside the point. Whether he will or can produce them is beside the point. The point is he has not made any available and, like the rest of his history, his time in the IL senate is a blank due to his own actions.
"Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could."
Obviously you don't care.
Absolutely!
Birthers start with the answer and simply latch on to anything that supports it, no matter how obviously ridiculous.
They will accept an analysis from a man with no name, no history, no verifiable education, and certainly no demonstrated expertise without question as long as Obama is the target.
His what do birther’s want is pretty accurate.
Is that a reference to 0bama? LOLOLOL
You’re being deliberately obtuse.
I have never made reference in any post to the photoshopped copy of Obama’s COLB that appeared on the web.
I am talking about Hawaii’s confirmation of the validity of the ORIGINAL birth records that the Department of Health holds for Barack Hussein Obama II.
If any prosecuting attorney (District Attorney or state Attorney General) in the nation wants to initiate a forgery or fraud Grand Jury investigation into the images of Obama’s COLB that appeared on the Daily Kos site or on Obama own “fight the smears” site, I would be 100% supportive of subpoenaing the original documents and comparing them to the photoshopped copies under oath by experts.
Presuming you have some minimal capability to think, the only records unavailable that you can have wanted are Obama’s personal records (i.e., not state records). He is under no legal obligation to have collected and retained such. Whether you or I think he should have is another matter altogether. But there is no seal on any any state records making Obama’s years a blank. There is only the question of his not providing for inspection personal records he was not required to maintain, a point that is moot. Because, again, he wasn't required to keep any. The fact that you personally think he is lying doesn't change that.
Yes, it is.
During a campaign stop last fall, Obama at first claimed he did not have any records of his eight years in the Illinois state legislature. “I don't have — I don't maintain — a file of eight years of work in the state Senate because I didn't have the resources available to maintain those kinds of records.”
(snip)
However, according to a February 25th letter from the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State in response to Judicial Watch’s open records request, “The ISA does not maintain Senator Obama’s personal records or papers. [Nor] does the ISA maintain records generated by his office. In addition, the ISA has received no requests from Senator Obama to archive any records formerly in his possession.”
Clearly the implication here is that he had records. He would have had to in order to do anything at all. All politicians do. Whether he archived his records or shredded them is beside the point. Whether he will or can produce them is beside the point. The point is he has not made any available and, like the rest of his history, his time in the IL senate is a blank due to his own actions.
“Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.”
Obviously you don't care.”
This makes my point. Again, reading comprehension. “The ISA does not maintain Senator Obama’s personal records or papers. [Nor] does the ISA maintain records generated by his office. In addition, the ISA has received no requests from Senator Obama to archive any records formerly in his possession.” This is the standard response they would give anyone about any State Senator's papers. All it says is that whatever records the Senator may or may not have are his business; the state doesn't keep them. And that would be because neither it nor the Senator are obligated to keep such records. If the Senator were legally obligated by the state to keep such records, the state would provide a repository.
When you've run out of argument go to the ad-hominem.
The records the state of Illinois maintains are government records. Those are available.
Duh. I said that and you said it wasn't so.
You have been screeching you want to see the records not available, so those can't be the ones to which you were referring.
Characterizing a post with a list of documents not seen as "screeching" is delusional. Are you schizophrenic? Do you hallucinate?
Unless, of course, you are incapable of forming a coherent argument in your own head. If that is the case, you have both my apologies for assuming any minimal capability on your part, and my pity for the same.
"Blah blah blah, I have no argument so I am insulting you and I actually think I'm being clever about it."
The rest of your adolescent screed is still missing the point by a country mile.
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could.
You don't care.
No I was not. You come across saying Obama's birth certificate is real. Well, Obama does have something on record that he is keeping secret.
However,
Tigerseye's post was specifically referring to Obama's COLB that he posted which is highly likely a forgery, and that was the topic at hand that your post was in response to. Your slight of hand was to change the subject.
I have never made reference in any post to the photoshopped copy of Obama’s COLB that appeared on the web.
Explained to you above.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;
You're right again. Clause 5 is so ambiguous that it can be interpreted a myriad of ways.”
This really is like talking to a table. Yes, the Constitution uses the words “natural born citizen.” No one has ever disputed that (hint: it's not a clever retort).
What you seem unable to comprehend is that there are valid factual and legal reasons for believing Obama is a natural born citizen. So citing the fact that the Constitution requires the President to be a NBC is not the all purpose answer you seem to think it is. Basically, you're insisting that the sky isn't blue because you interpret the word “blue” to mean “blue-green.”
My post did not reference Tigereye’s post. I simply posted the USA Today version of the local Honolulu newspaper’s coverage of the statement issued by the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health which verified his birth on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 p.m. in Honolulu.
There is also the fact that both Honolulu newspapers carried birth announcements for Barack Hussein Obama in their Sunday, August 13,1961 editions. If and when a prosecutor charges forgery or fraud with regard to the internet copy of Obama’s COLB, I’ll pay attention. To date, no prosecutor in the nation has charged any crime or investigated forgery or fraud with regard to that document.
My intent was to add additional information to this thread.
This thread is about whether or not the Department of Health in Hawaii is following the law that authorizes how confidential information can and cannot be released to the public. I consider my post more relevant than posts about allegedly forged or faked copies of a birth document posted on the internet.
"I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago...."
That was the statement you linked to. Where does it say 0bama's birth was "on August 4, 1961 at 7:24 p.m. in Honolulu.?" You lie.
Bump
Bump
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.