Posted on 12/16/2010 1:17:21 PM PST by Cardhu
Those who say that more dots actually makes a bigger, more unbelievable “conspiracy” have accepted an epistemology that ensures they will never be able to see a big picture that they can actually believe. If it has a lot of dots connected it’s incredible; if the dots don’t form solid lines there are too many holes in it. See what I mean?
Yes, I see exactly what you mean.
To the layperson, the earth is indeed spherical. But… How exact is that? It is correct that the earth is generally spherical. But that is not an exact statement.
The geometric definition of a sphere is basically ‘Every point on the surface is the same distance from the center.” This is clearly not true about the earth as we have large deviations in the distance from the center to points on the surface. So the mathematical definition doesn’t work on this level.
If someone claimed that the earth was a sphere, and from the mathematical definition of a sphere proceeded to argue that therefore there were no elevation changes. They would be wrong. But it wouldn’t follow from that the earth was flat. Photographs of the earth from space showing a rotating circular profile could then be employed, but they still don’t’ give you the information you need.
The earth isn’t an exact sphere. Those who study the matter can truthfully say (and demonstrate) that the earth is not “spherical’ in the true meaning of the term. But again saying that the earth is not spherical does not mean that the earth is flat.
The earth is wider at the equator due to rotational and gravitational effects. The correct term is ‘oblate ellipsoid’. A measurement of the earth around the equator measures some 40 miles more than a measurement taken along any given longitude. And even those measurements are usually running averages of elevations above sea level. ‘Sea level’ really isn’t even the same from one point to another even before tidal forces from the moon are taken into consideration.
For a basic understanding of the shape of the earth, ‘sphere’ is fine. But if you want to actually do something with that information (orbits, navigation, etc.) you have to take into account that the earth isn’t truly spherical.
Specialists specialize for a reason. There is a great deal to know about and no one person can grasp it all. That’s one reason open markets work so well, but I digress…
Great leaders are usually great generalists who know how to use specialists and when to seek their input.
Maybe it’s because of my line of work that this is important to me. I’ve seen it happen far too often where the general picture of how something ought to behave breaks down because of some smaller characteristics that aren’t apparent in the knowledge of the larger picture but are known to someone who specializes in some smaller aspect of a system involved. Say an engineer who works with power distribution will have a wide understanding of electrical theory, but will not be terribly successful in high frequency electronics without the addition of a good deal of schooling and practical experience. By the same token, I wouldn’t give terribly great weight to a decorated admiral’s pronouncements on the use of infantry, or a JAG’s pontifications on the shape of the earth.
Experts should be listened to when they speak on their expertise. Outside their expertise they may not know any more than the average schmo.
Oregon, shessh...
No I don’t. His oath was to obey his orders, his character should have been to the troops that relied on him to supply them his experience as a combat surgeon.
Get educated - check on the oath.
We think Obama was born in Hawaii, as all actual evidence indicates, overly feverish imaginations notwithstanding.
Whatever we may personally think should be the case about the two-citizen NBC theory, we recognize that it isn't the law. We further recognize that no court is ever going to throw a sitting President out of office over parentage issues that were common knowledge when he ran for office, when he won a nation-wide election, and when Congress certified his election.
We don't generally think he's an actual tyrant. We think that's bed-wetting hysteria. He's a run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat, which some would call socialist, and he's pursuing things the Democratic Party has advocated for a long time. None of it is particularly shocking if you've been listening to what they say for the past 30 years. I voted against him for that reason, but there's nothing in the Constitution that says liberal Democrats can't win elections. It happens.
Far from being cavalier, I oppose most of Obama’s policies and actively work to get out the Republican vote every two years. You may sneer at that as you wish, but winning those battles is actually how government policies change. Screaming that the sky is falling every time we lose an election and then making up crazy stuff about the elected President doesn't accomplish anything.
We are simply calmer and more deliberate in our assessments. We know this country has survived far worse than this, some of us have sacrificed for our country in situations far worse than this, and we have more faith in this country. Take a deep breath and give it a try.
Or maybe they said they were threatened because they were, and any further action on it would result in payback. Doug Hagmann says he has the handwritten notes from the meeting where the media head told the on-air personalities about the threats. And the behaviors that surround just that time fit the allegations.
The difference between Thomas’ comment now and in previous instances is that there had never been any cases before. Now there ARE cases. And Thomas’ statements that Serrano would do better to try to be a SCOTUS justice than to be a POTUS because a SCOTUS justice doesn’t have to be born in the USA pretty much tells us that Thomas isn’t afraid to duck the presidential eligibility issue. But yet he says they are evading it.
If that was the only odd thing I’d write it off, as you say. But there ARE other odd things, not only with the SCOTUS justices but with the other judges (and I did mention some of the ethics breaches, such as David Carter hiring a clerk from Perkins-Coie in the middle of a suit which was originally argued by Perkins-Coie, the ex parte meeting with Obama initiated by Chief Justice Roberts on the same day that they refused the Donofrio case, the Robertson ex parte claim that the issue had been decided on Twitter, etc).
I don’t have time to go over this again. You’re acting like I never said any of the stuff I’ve already said.
You want me to initiate a major blow-up with my husband to make sure we pay more taxes than the Congress and alleged POTUS say we should?
Maybe it would be a way to get standing. Sue for the chance to pay more taxes. Somehow I don’t think the government would fight me on that.
If you read what I said, I said that you were probably right - that considering Obama’s ineligibility and the pocket veto that would cause, the Bush tax cuts would Constitutionally expire as of Jan 1st. But that the decisions regarding our taxes are made by my husband, and he is not cool with doing anything to buck a government where Janet Napolitano has almost certainly already labeled me a domestic terrorist because I favor limited government.
My husband really doesn’t give a darn about Lt Col Lakin, except that he knows I care about it. He really doesn’t give a darn whether Biden is the one Constitutionally authorized to act as POTUS. He believes what I’ve said about it is true, but he mostly just wants to “cooperate and graduate”. To him, what I’m doing is a waste of time that could be spent on spiritual things. Or cleaning house. Considering that he thinks I’m wasting my time, he’s pretty patient with me, but he’s not going to put the family on the line in any way for the sake of any of this.
He’s the one figuring the taxes, and to him there is no inconsistency. He expects the government to be corrupt, and he doesn’t much care as long as our family is OK and he can keep preaching. He grew up in an emotionally abusive situation and learned that little guys who don’t cooperate experience bad things so your best bet is to appease the bullies and mind your own business.
Aside from grabbing the Turbo Tax for myself and totally disrespecting him, I have very little choice in the matter. Call me a wimp or unprincipled if you like, but he has to live with his conscience just as I have to live with mine, and his conscience won’t allow him to sacrifice either his family or his ministry in order to confront a perpetually-corrupt government.
Alfred Itamura, with the approval of ombudsman Robin Matsunaga, says noncertified copies are definitely permitted. Disagree if you like but do realize that you are disagreeing with the Ombudsman’s Office and not just me.
Section 2.3 of the DOH Administrative Rules is a general reference for ALL requests, not just noncertified requests. So it is talking about requests for certified copies as well as for non-certified copies. To say that the applicant has to establish their right to receive the records is necessary because certified copies are restricted. To establish my right to receive a non-certified abbreviated certificate all I need to do is establish that I am “any person”.
There is no conflict.
You’re ignoring what I said. Rather than let anybody know they are treating Obama’s records differently, they are choosing to break the law with EVERYBODY. It’s actually the same mentality as shown in the “standing” issues: as long as they screw everybody equally it doesn’t matter that they are screwing anybody - or in this case, breaking the disclosure laws for everybody.
What I’m talking about is not water-cooler talk. This is communications that both I and my colleague were told by workers at the HDOH when we questioned what the heck was going on with our requests. In both instances we were told that Obama’s records are being treated differently, and that the delays we were experiencing were because the HDOH treats Obama’s records differently.
I’d have to look to find it again, but Buckeye Texan also spoke to a worker at the HDOH, and the worker would only engage on his questions if the worker remained anonymous to Buckeye Texan. Didn’t want anybody being able to cite her as the source for any information.
And the HDOH worker my colleague spoke to would not respond to any further communications from her after the conversation where he nervously explained that she had fulfilled all the legal requirements to get a verification but her request was being held up at the AG’s office because of the dilemma of not wanting the refusal to release Obama’s records to stick out like a sore thumb.
Those workers are afraid of retaliation.
This is not just SNAFU.
A higher volume of requests for Obama’s information would only make a difference in the “backlog” being only on the Obama stuff if the supposed “Obama” requests were kept separate from other requests - which they are. That is what the worker told me, and the index data request delay that my colleague experienced only makes sense if the Obama requests WERE segregated. So what we experienced matches what the HDOH worker stated.
The video of a long-form being ordered at the HDOH office and the HDOH worker saying it should arrive in a week was taken in the summer of 2010 - a year after the HDOH claimed they couldn’t release long-form BC’s. And right here on FR we had a poster a month or two ago who received a copy of her long-form BC from Hawaii by mail - albeit after a LOT of hassle from the HDOH. You can talk to Danae about that particular situation.
UIPA is clear that a person is entitled to receive their own records (unless it’s about a criminal investigation, for instance), so if they’ve got a long-form in the HDOH office, the law requires the HDOH to disclose it to them on request.
There are nuances, yes, and the analogy was perhaps not the best becasue like all analogies it eventually breaks down.
This one might be better. A mathematical law might say that for all instances where x>0, y>0, and z>0, x+y+z>0. Suppose somebody claimed that when you use numbers that are exact to the thousandth place, the law doesn’t hold true because of rounding - so that the more exact you get, the less the law holds up as being true.
What would you say about that?
A positive number will never round to a negative number so no matter how exact you get, the law would remain true. There is no technicality that can alter the accuracy of the law, and any “rounding” the experts do to come up with a different result is just sleight-of-hand. Sophistry. Which seems to be one of the bragging rights for lawyers, who gain their fame by twisting and maneuvering the evidence and arguments so that an unexpected outcome results.
They say that anything can be proven by statistics, depending on how you twist them. If the minute rules can be twisted to say the opposite of what everybody has always understood them to say (such as a ruling concluding that brigade commanders can lawfully order a foreign invasion without presidential approval, when everybody agrees that brigade commanders can’t do that), there is either a problem with the rules or with the people who are twisting them.
At what point would you question whether the “experts” were engaging in creative sophistry rather than being faithful to the intent and genuine meaning of the rules?
What “actual evidence” are you talking about?
Thank you. I always wonder if the objections are able to effectively cloud the truth or make things so complicated that nobody will have the patience to sort it all out. It’s encouraging to think that others would plow through all the verbiage to understand the truth.
If just one state AG would initiate an investigation they could depose these workers and we could find out what really went on in that office. Especially if those workers knew that the embedded transaction log for Obama’s records was also being subpoenaed.
The challenge right now is finding somebody with both the legal authority AND the guts to investigate.
The only unproven assumption is that Obama was born in Hawaii. That's it. The rest of the evidence shows he was born elsewhere or can't prove he was born in Hawaii. It starts with a jpg that unnecessarily had the certificate number redacted. Then it leads to a set of photos that had EXIF data scrubbed and a certificate number that can't be confirmed. The former director of the Dept. of Health released two public statements ... NEITHER of which says his COLB is legal or genuine. His own wife says Kenya is his home country. One of his political friends, Tammy Duckworth, was quoted in a story saying he was born in Indonesia. A high school newspaper story that contained comments from an interview with Obama's sister (from the same high school where she works) says he was born in a different hospital than the one he currently claims. In a 1995 interview, Obama says he wasn't named until his father left for Kenya (although it doesn't say if it was the first or second time). Two known long form birth certificates contain certificate numbers showing Obama's number is impossibly out of sequence. The state of Hawaii REFUSES to confirm who the factlack dot org certificate number belongs to, even though they have statutory authority to release the number and the name. A school record lists Obama under a different last name and as a citizen of Indonesia ... which is the only available record declaring ANY citizenship for Obama. Kenyan parliament members made two separate, unrelated statements declaring Obama was born in Kenya. The state of Hawaii changed its disclosure law to AVOID releasing information about Obama that can otherwise be legally released. Several stories claim different years for when Obama moved to Indonesia and when his mother married his stepfather/adoptive father. The governor of Hawaii makes a public comment that a news release was issued saying Obama was born in Kapiolani Hospital, but no such news release exists. The state department fails to provide all of Stanley Ann Dunham's passport records, making an unsupported claim that some of the records were destroyed. An interview with SAD's friend in Washington state puts SAD in Washington awkwardly soon after the baby was born with no apparent ability to care for the baby. School records and phone directory listings put SAD in Washington the entire time she was supposedly married to Obama's father. Obama's father is quoted extensively in a story about being involved in the Honolulu community, but fails to mention he has a local wife and child. The list goes on and on.
A piece of swiss cheese the size of Montana doesn't have this many holes. Applying Occam's Razor then, the simplest answer is that Obama cannot prove he was born in Hawaii and that he is hiding this information from the public, perhaps with help from others, wittingly and unwittingly.
Thank you for this summary. There are far too many questions about BO still open.
Add to that list the evidence that BO's birth announcement which allegedly appeared in the Honolulu Star-Register and Honolulu Advertiser newspapers doesn't match the pattern of how other birth announcements have appeared in the respective papers, and how the available library microfilm rolls for these newspapers covering the birth announcement's date range show evidence of tampering.
"We find that the above-cited rules do not require the DOH to provide you with a noncertified abbreviated copy of President Obama’s birth certificate."
Again, if you can show that HDOH has issued noncertified copies of someone else's COLB between 1977 and 2008, you'll convince me that they are treating the information differently for Obama. If you can't show that, all you've shown is that the HDOH decided not to issue noncertified copies for anyone after the 1977 statute, and instead fulfill information release requirements with index data. You have not shown that they are breaking the law, nor does Itamura's letter agree with you on that.
I think you are overlooking a lot. For instance, you say To say that the applicant has to establish their right to receive the records is necessary because certified copies are restricted ignores the fact that a few sections talk about all copies being restricted. Again, the relevant section 2.1 A says
Vital records authorized under chapter 338 Hawaiian Revised Statutes are not available for or open to public inspection. Access to the records, including copies or information from them is not permitted except as provided by law or regulations the Department of Health may promulgate.and 338-18 (a) forbids anyone
to disclose information contained in vital statistics records, or to copy or issue a copy of all or part of any such record, except as authorized by this part or by rules adopted by the department of health.
This puts you in the apparently contradictory position of acknowledging that the statue (and rules) say that no one may even inspect the certificate data without proving their qualification, but that it's fine to issue a noncertified copy of that same data. (Does not compute!) Obviously, their rules are a poorly written mess, but it doesn't surprise me they would choose to be guided by the 1977 statute rather than the poorly written rules document.
A higher volume of requests for Obama’s information would only make a difference in the “backlog” being only on the Obama stuff if the supposed “Obama” requests were kept separate from other requests - which they are.
There are two types of "treated differently" for us to distinguish. There is the type that would be illegal, which is refusing to release the same type of information for one person that HDOH is willing to release for another. The second type is where the process is different, but the information released or not released is the same. You can bet that requests for information on Lindsay Lohan's or Brittney Spear's medical condition are handled differently in a hospital than requests for information on John Doe. Why? Because requests for information on John Doe are rather routine and easily handled; lawsuits and large amounts of adverse publicity are unlikely. Requests on celebrities on the other hand, can generate huge problems, so they are handled differently to make sure the enquirer doesn't persuade or trick the employee into unauthorized disclosure. Our hospital, for example, had a policy that all requests for information on the condition of a public figure had to go through the PR office. It doesn't surprise me that any HDOH worker would be nervous about giving out information and want anonymity - if they are not specifically authorized to speak for the department, they're not supposed to give out any additional information. That's a feature of many bureaucracies these days.
Please link to the video of the long form request and promise so I can see it for myself. I did do a search for Danae's material, only to find that the images had been removed from the posting. Also, can you link to the HDOH statement's giving short vs. long form certificates? I recall a statement that the COLB is what is routinely sent when a certificate is requested, but not anything else about what is and isn't possible to obtain.
I can back up what Butter says here.
I got my own uncertified records, but I am telling you, I DID have to jump through hoops to get it. It took 2 separate requests, the first of which HDOH still has not filled, though I KNOW it is sitting in a pile on Onaka’s desk, because his secretary told me that is where she found the second one. Her comment was, (paraphrasing)’...oh he didn’t get to these...’ Well yes, of course not, because Onaka is not doing ANY of them unless he is seriously pressed by the person requesting them. I had to speak to him PERSONALLY to get what I eventually got.
In what other State in the United States are you forced to speak to the Director of a Department of Health in order to get an UNCERTIFIED COPY OF YOUR OWN BIRTH RECORDS???
Seriously!
Answer that question in honesty and its immediately apparent that something is REAL wrong in Hawaii.
They aren’t just covering Obama’s dumb ass. No, they are covering up institutional FRAUD. Decades of it. They registered THOUSANDS of babies between 1959 and some time in the 70’s and or 80’s if not LONGER, who were born overseas!!! To parents who were foreigners.... on the basis of a late filed birth certificate with a home address listed as the location of that “birth” with nothing other than a witness signature.
I am willing to bet that Obama HAS one of those late filed forms, does not have a Dr. Signature on it, and CANNOT PROVE he was born in Hawaii because of Hawaii’s institutional fraud!
That is why Hawaii is desperate. If Obama’s records EVER become public, it will out the state in what it did. You see, those falsely registered babies, GOT AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP BECAUSE OF THEIR FRAUDULENT COLB’S GIVEN TO THEM BY THE STATE.
Think about THAT for a moment.
Obama is a jerk of the first order, but he is NOT important enough to force the state to do what it has been doing with regards to his records.
Hawaii has bigger fish to fry than just Oholyo. It just happens that Obama knows about Hawaii’s fraud and has leveraged it to his advantage. Make no mistake, Chicago has NOTHING on the corruption which has and still does exist in Hawaii. For sure, Obama knows how to leverage corruption.
So in light of this I ask again, in what other state do you have to personally speak to the Director of the Department of Health in order to get an UNCERTIFIED COPY of your OWN birth records??
This stinks worse than a 3 week dead fish wrapped in the New York Times.
Ping to post 697.
As for "They registered THOUSANDS of babies between 1959 and some time in the 70’s and or 80’s if not LONGER, who were born overseas!!! " do you have proof for that? If so, please link or cite. Or is it just speculation? The DOH site says the late "Hawaiian birth" program ran from 1911 to 1972.
BDZ has extensive information on that. It was once a part of Hawaii’s website for the HDOH, the procedure for filing a “Late” form. Of course they scrubbed that from the internet back in 2008. I believe that the ObamaFile might have the original pages.
However, look these up if you can still find them: Section 57- 9, 18, 19 & 20 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.
“If a child is born in Hawaii, for whom no physician or mid wife filed a certificate of live birth, and for whom no Delayed Certificate was filed before the first birthday, then a Certificate of Hawaiian Birth could be issued upon testimony of an adult (including the subject person [i.e. the birth child as an adult]) if the Office of the Lieutenant Governor was satisfied that a person was born in Hawaii, provided that the person had attained the age of one year. (See Section 57-40 of the Territorial Public Health Statistics Act in the 1955 Revised Laws of Hawaii which was in effect in 1961.) In 1955 the “secretary of the Territory” was in charge of this procedure. In 1960 it was transferred to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (“the lieutenant governor, or his secretary, or such other person as he may designate or appoint from his office” §338-41 [in 1961]).”
~ http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/clearing-the-smoke-june10/
Read this entire article. Then re-read it. This article did not create my perceptions with regard to the State of Hawaii. It confirmed my EXPERIENCE of Hawaii.
We knew this years ago, but no one was listening. Shoot, the whole mockery operation against any constitutionalist and or person fighting for the rule of law has been so effective, even reasonable and intelligent people cannot see past the smokescreen of it.
One day these truths will be obvious. Hawaii and Obama can’t cover it all up forever. One day it will blow up and it will be one of the largest scandals to EVER rock the United States. Mark my words.
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.