Posted on 05/05/2010 10:41:27 PM PDT by STARWISE
'The question has been asked and answered, and I think we should all move on now'
###
..... the governor of Hawaii is now publicly voicing the alleged exact location of Obama's birth, saying "the president was, in fact, born at Kapi'olani Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii"
The disclosure is believed to be the first time a state government official has declared the precise place where Obama was born, despite numerous other published claims, including some for a different hospital in Honolulu.
The remark came Sunday night when Gov. Linda Lingle, a Republican, was interviewed on New York's WABC Radio by host Rabbi Shmuley Boteach. (The subject was addressed at the 77-minute mark HERE.)
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
What if scenario below! Lingle says Obama was born in Hawaii hospital. In full knowledge if that is a lie she is going to get caught eventually. She did lie about her announcement on this bit of information I think. Perhaps when Obama came back to the country his family did nothing and it was not important until he ran for POTUS. Until Obama had thew right communists behind him he may have never thought he would get this far.
Some people feel Obama is a NBC who say they have seen his BC. There is something they are leaving out. They are determining what NBC means basically. Which could be why Clarence Thomas said SCOTUS is avoiding that question.
I find it hard to believe Obama was born in the Hawaiian hospital that I can’t spell without looking at it. Because that would be historic and the hospital would want to use it as the birthplace of the president. There would be no reason for Obama to hide that either. What I would believe is Stanley Ann said he was born there and the BC showed the amendments or doc’s rec’vd.
So we would have a BC that states Obama was born in hawaii but gave up citizenship as a amendment. Plus a new name Sutoro, Soetoro whatever. Are Indonesia records sealed also?
http://bayareabaptistchurch.info/dpw/?p=381
Obama was legally adopted by his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, which made Obama an Indonesian citizen according to Indonesian law. Because Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship, Obama thus lost his U.S. citizenship (if he even had it) when he became an Indonesian citizen in or about 1967. At that point, Obama also ceased to be a Kenyan citizen, according to both Indonesian and Kenyan law. Indonesian law would also have required Ann Dunham to renounce her U.S. citizenship for her marriage to Lolo Soetoro to have been considered legal in that country.
Appropriate federal records would be on file if Obama made application for naturalization. If they exist, they have not been made public.
According to Indonesian legal experts, it is extremely difficult for non-Indonesian citizens to enroll in public schools in that country. That was especially true during the 1960s, when Indonesia was a police state and Indonesian immigration officials and the police performed weekly checks on public schools to confirm citizenship compliance. This further supports the assumption that Obama was adopted by Soetoro. Obama’s half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, has stated that Obama was adopted by their father, Lolo Soetoro.
Indonesia today still does not allow dual citizenship. Under Indonesia law, once Obama became a naturalized citizen by virtue of adoption he could not lose that status without relinquishing his citizenship in writing, under oath. If he did that, the government of Indonesia would have those records. If he did not do so by age 21, Obama is to this day still considered an Indonesian citizen by that country. His place of birth or the nationality of his mother is irrelevant; Indonesian law takes precedence under The Master Nationality Rule of Article 4 of the Hague Convention on 1930.
I agree that HIPAA doesn't always make sense - especially to those of us that deal with it all the time!
Doesn’t it seem odd to you that Obama’s lawyers who are so capable and intelligent are leaving the dual citizenship issue totally unprotected while they even make illegal threats to broadcast companies if they so much as mention the birth certificate issue?
I think it’s because they know the SCOTUS would never have the guts to stand up and follow the original intent of the Constitution - because they know that the SCOTUS would take the easier route of saying that citizenship and natural born citizenship are the same thing, and are defined in the 14th amendment. These are the guys who have (supposedly) said that presidential eligibility is so much more insignificant than fines for cigarette companies, for example. I don’t have much faith in them.
It just doesn’t make sense to me that so many people would be breaking so many laws and rules, as well as making so many legal arguments and provisions, to make sure that the birth place remains hidden.... but leave out in plain sight, totally unprotected, the dual citizenship avenue that could be their final demise.
Obama’s lawyers weren’t able to keep the HDOH from making a statutory admission that Obama’s BC is amended - which renders his BC insufficient to be prima facie evidence. That, right there, means that the only way a LEGAL determination of his eligibility can be made is by looking at all the documents. If he is ever required to LEGALLY DOCUMENT his eligibility, the privacy mechanisms Obama’s lawyers are making are wasted.
And they didn’t stop Okubo from revealing that the certificate number discrepancy can’t be explained by pre-numbered certificates or piles of BC’s waiting for processing.
The very fact that there is this cover-up should compel an investigation. The UIPA itself says the primary reason for openness is to make the GOVERNMENT accountable. And we have serious reasons to question whether the HDOH is falsifying information and/or guilty of misprision, etc. At the very least ethics breaches. There should absolutely be an investigation of them. In such a case, the privacy rights of individuals are secondary to the public interest.
The fact that nobody will investigate totally blows their credibility, IMHO. The FBI is a sad joke. The AG and US Attorneys are political hacks. If they think that exposing those realities to the American public is a good way to “distract” us, I think (hope) they underestimate the outrage of the American public. We’re tired now because it feels like our hands are tied, but this thing will eventually blow up in their faces.
If I was Pelosi I’d be looking for a good lawyer. She has certifiably perjured herself by certifying his Constitutional eligibility.
And when I spoke with the Deputy AG of Hawaii, he said that in Hawaii anything that uses the terms certify, verify, etc is considered an oath even if there’s not a self-subscribing oath.
Hawaii law also says that “inviting a government official to rely on” what is known to be a false document is perjury. Every SOS in the country was “invited to rely upon” that Factcheck COLB. By Hawaii standards at least, that means that Gibbs, Obama’s lawyers, and Obama himself are guilty of perjury, as are the folks at the HDOH.
I suppose the lawyers can argue over what the definition of is is. But to the American people, Obama and his entire regime are history if he and everybody we were told to trust has been betraying us with a kiss this whole time.
At least I hope America is self-respecting enough that it would be that way.
So reporters can say whatever they want but it’s always just hearsay because they can’t get official confirmation of anything? Do I understand that correctly?
Seems like if they say somebody is in critical, fair, good, etc condition, that’s a medical evaluation, but without the consent of the person it’s just their guess of what the condition is - since nobody medical can verify that for them. Is that right?
How would they protect against that? I mean, by what means could they possibly argue that someone born a citizen of TWO countries is Constitutionally qualified to the POTUS? They can't. That's why they haven't touched it. There's nothing they can do with it. They have relied upon issues of standing, jurisdiction and questions of politics to prevent that question from reaching SCOTUS. Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
"7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
...
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952). "
He was born with dual allegiance (assuming HI birth). He could be a Senator, or a Rep...or a Governor. But not the Commander in Chief. The framers made that distinction in the Constitution.
Think back when Obama was campaigning in 2008. He said he was leaving to see his grandmother during the week I believe. It was a few days before he left. I remember thinking what a A** for campaigning when his grandmother needs him. Then they said he spent a hour with her once there. Then I read here she was cremated and back in her apartment before media was alerted.
This was also when Contrarian was in Hawaii court demanding release of obama’s BC. There was a lot of talk Obama would show up in court. Yeah right.
If you did not want anyone getting any DNA, this is how your grandmother would die. Before anyone knew. Obama Sr’s buddy Neil Abercrombie would set the whole thing up with his connections. Socialist New Party that Obama and Neil both belong to would be very helpful with physicians and crematories.
Yes! Most people don’t realize how strict HIPAA is, and how severe the penalties. Your I/T team sounded a bit more fanatic than some, but I would never say unnecessary given the penalties for even unintentional disclosure.
We know that hospitals and medical groups with EMR log every access to a record. We have to sign promising that we will never leave anything unattended unless it’s in a “secure” area. This is why I question those who say, “we asked every hospital in Hawaii and they all said ‘not born here’.”
More like an ABNORMAL AND TROUBLING BACKGROUND...
You wrote, “How, exactly, are military officers supposed to protect the Constitution from domestic enemies? Give me a scenario where a military officer, without orders from somebody else to use as justification, would protect the Constitution from domestic enemies.”
The military wouldn’t take actions without orders. The phrase “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” applies to these situations:
Civil War
Whiskey Rebellion
Bonus Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army)
It most assuredly does NOT include determining to remove from office someone who won the popular vote, and was certified by Congress without a single dissent and sworn in by the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court!
“Where in there does it state a “Natural Born Citizen” of the United States can also be born a British subject?”
Where does it state that it cannot? That is part of my beef with birthers. They act as though there is no other legitimate interpretation of what NBC means, even though it was used in different ways by different people, and the courts have drifted towards using it as synonymous with ‘born in the USA’ - which I believe is the wrong interpretation, but my opinion doesn’t count for squat.
And if the Supreme Court DID decide to take a case, and felt it was 55:45 in favor of the birther definition, they STILL would find in favor of the sitting President. It would require an overwhelming legal case to make them commit to ruling Obama ‘illegal’, and that overwhelming case simply does not exist.
I agree. The natural born issue is critical.
It just seems strange that Factcheck would forge a COLB for Obama in order to hide what’s on his real one (which poses no risk because they can keep people from being able to see it anyway, as was accurately argued by Spaulding) and then openly state in front of everybody that Obama is a dual citizen (the bomb that anybody in the world could pick up and kill them with).
Know what I mean?
I say they are both grounds for getting rid of the guy, and even if they weren’t his law-breaking would be reason enough to get rid of the guy - if justice was really followed in this country. And for me, that’s the biggest issue: the law is not being followed anywhere in this country. It’s a sad, sad joke that will kill us if we don’t reclaim the rule of law - both Constitutional law (which is what the dual citizenship issue is about) AND criminal and civil statutes (which is what the birth certificate issue is about).
These two hands can actually work together really well to pinch him because the crimes he’s committed to cover up his documentation problem (not having prima facie evidence of a Hawaii birth) raise the profile of the issue and could (hopefully) keep the judges accountable. The more he jerks us all around, the more his favorability goes down the tubes, which also affects the willingness of judges to take on the Constitutional issue.
As America has seen how lawless Congress was in the healthcare takeover and Obama was in the auto, bank, media, and loan industry takeovers, and absorbs the way the media and power brokers in the “mainstream” throw tantrums over Arizona simply wanting to enforce the law.... I think people are able to see that we are at a crisis point where government is out of control and lawless. Whether or not Obama posting a forgery online qualifies as a crime outside Hawaii as well as in Hawaii, the American people are not likely to be amused by his mockery of the rule of law. He may still be giggling and Beck and Matthews may be guffawing, but I think the American public will not be laughing much longer.
Why take an oath to the Constitution to defend it from domestic enemies if simply following orders is the same thing? If they personally are never to do anything but follow orders, why take an oath to do anything but follow orders - the enlisted oath?
If it is as you say, the officer’s oath can’t possibly mean anything beyond the enlisted oath.
So why is it different? Just a decoration - so an officer can say to the enlisted person, “I agreed to obey in a more flowery way than you did”?
“Why take an oath to the Constitution to defend it from domestic enemies if simply following orders is the same thing?”
Because the military doesn’t operate on personal feelings. If a local commander decides he wants to remove the City Council of Tucson (an admirable goal, BTW), he can’t just call up some troops and march on Tucson.
I am absolutely certain the City Council of Tucson hates America, freedom and everything in the US Constitution, but that doesn’t give a military officer the right to take them out.
Hell, I don’t like the French, but I never declared war on them when I was in the military. In like manner, the military takes on domestic enemies - such as the ones I cited - acting on national authority. And in case you missed it, all three branches of government agree that Obama is the President.
The Constitution agrees that Obama can only be president if he is the right age, is a natural born citizen, and has been a resident long enough.
And the Constitution is what the officers swear to protect from enemies. Was the Whiskey Rebellion an assault on the Constitution?
Lakin is asking the executive and judicial branches to clarify whether they agree that Obama is the president. Far from agreeing that he is the president, as you say, they have all agreed that it DOESN’T MATTER whether he is or isn’t a Constitutional president. I’d say that if those branches say the Constitution doesn’t matter, that causes an officer who meant his oath to take serious pause - because that, unlike a martial law type situation, is genuinely a threat to the US Constitution, which he made an oath to defend.
Lakin was not going on personal feelings. He was going by whether or not the people who are supposed to uphold the Constitution ever bothered to do so. He asked them in every way he knew how to clarify the issue for him because he DIDN’T want anybody’s personal feelings to supercede the Constitution. EVERYBODY HE ASKED BASED THEIR ANSWERS ON PERSONAL FEELINGS RATHER THAN EITHER THE DOCUMENTED FACTS OR ON THE CONSTITUTION. They flat-out refused to check ANY facts.
I know that, because the military stakes their whole case on Obama’s election being certified and him being sworn in. But I know for a fact that neither Nancy Pelosi nor any democratic leader or lawyer ever even asked to see Obama’s documentation. The HDOH told me that straight out. We know that Pelosi perjured herself by saying that she knows Obama is Constitutionally eligible because she did not do even the most rudimentary check on whether he is even a citizen, much less a natural born citizen - or even whether he meets the age requirement.
She was just as diligent at checking out Obama as the voter registration people were diligent in checking out the 9-11 hijackers who were registered to vote. And the lack of due diligence may have about the same net effect on the country.
So I would think that if you say the military operates on something besides personal feelings, you would have a major problem with the military leadership refusing to confirm facts and cover all the bases.
For once I agree with you. Investigations should present facts not opinions. Opine all you want and we will give it the weight it deserves, just like Obama,another Zero....
The Larry Sinclair links don’t work. Do you have an update?
Does HIPAA cover a person who’s been dead for a year and a half? It’s one thing for Hussein’s attorneys to hide his personal records, but it’s entirely different to hide Madelyn’s.
No, Thomas didn't use the word "avoiding", he used the word "evading" which means something else entirely. Go look it up. Avoiding means merely side stepping something whereas evading includes deceit and cleverness and trickery. Thomas is smart enough to understand the word he chose.
Hold on, let me look around.
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.