Posted on 03/27/2011 4:10:35 PM PDT by Red Steel
Donald Trumps calls this week for President Barack Obama to release his birth certificate prompted negative reactions from pundits who would like to turn the tables on Trump and say, Youre fired.
However, Trumps comments, made most recently in an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, also garnered support from those who wonder why Obama has not supplied documentation of where he was born.
Trump rekindled the longtime controversy Wednesday on ABCs The View when he said Obama was probably born in the United States, but he wants the president to prove it with a birth certificate.
As for the critics, Brian Lowry of Variety got personal. More than anything, Trump looks like a buffoon an egomaniac hopelessly addicted to the spotlight, floating the prospect of a presidential run to a gullible media to boost interest in himself and Celebrity Apprentice," Lowry wrote on the magazines website.
Moreover, he seems in complete denial about the fact that his NBC show crested some time ago. Seriously, 8 million viewers or so is through the roof? Only if the ceiling is about three inches above your head.
David Weigel of Slate magazine took up Trumps challenge to show him a photo of Obama as a child. I've seen 14-year-old, Trump said. I've seen 13-year-old. I haven't seen early pictures." Weigels column includes a photo of Obama as a child that appeared on the cover of Time magazine in 2008.
-snip-
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie, a friend of Obama's parents in Hawaii who said he remembers when the future president was born, first vowed to produce an original copy of the president's birth certificate this year.
But he abandoned those efforts because it is against state law to release private documents, CNN quoted his spokeswoman as saying.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
The HIPAA fine for releasing non medical(birth of a child) information is $100.00 dollars, but no hospital has ever been fined for releasing such information. Hospitals routinely still release such information.
This has been discussed at length on other threads. Hospitals, according to HIPAA, must protect confidential health information, which includes
However, there is an exception in that a hospital may have a publicly accessible directory of inpatients, so as to direct visitors to patients. This too is controlled:
the patient must be informed about the information to be included in the directory, and to whom the information may be released, and must have the opportunity to restrict the information or to whom it is disclosed, or opt out of being included in the directory.Someone who was a patient over four decades ago would not fall under the directory exception. I've had to take a course on HIPAA, it is very restrictive and hospitals are very concerned not to violate the Privacy Rule.
Who’s back is he on in that pic? His commie grandfather?
Trump has started almost every conversation on this topic by stating that he (Trump) was a very good student at the best school in the country. I've wondered whether this was a dig at Obama's student records.
He certainly does. Look at the eyes especially. BO SR.....not a chance.
I heard a discussion of this in relation to the union controversy in Wisconsin. Unions spend something like 93% of their money supporting Democrat candidates. Big business, on the other hand, contributes about equally to both political parties. Basically, they want to back the winners....
There was a Senate query about McCain because he was born outside the US while his father was serving in the US Navy in Panama. No one in the Senate seemed curious enough about the circumstances of Obama’s birth. But you are referring only to a Senate action, not the process of state-by-state getting on the ballot. That is the question Huckabee was asked and answered.
Luckily she became a naturalized citizen (US Citizen) before Donald was born. This makes Donald a natural born citizen.
Why has the baby photo on the left been given the title “frank”?
No. 0blingbling has thicker eyebrows, thicker lips, bigger ears of very different shape, smaller nose, narrower chin.
So it is retroactive to five decades ago?
You are confusing two things - civil penalties for unintentional HIPAA violations, vs. intentional violations which are a criminal violation with accompanying large fine and possible prison time. Hospitals may confirm that someone is a patient under the directory exception (see post #162), and give general condition while the patient is in the hospital. That does not permit them to give out information on someone who was a patient years ago.
American Thinker just posted a Bill Ayers video from Thursday in which Ayers jokes that he wrote it, and seems to imply that he wants Jack Cashill to help him get the royalties.
In the sense that hospitals can't now release protected health information on someone from five decades ago, yes. Not retroactive in the sense of hospitals being punished for what they released prior to the HIPAA law.
American Thinker video of Ayers wanting the royalties:
Not surprisingly, Ayers retreated into irony as he ended the session. “Yeah, yeah,” he said after confirming again that he wrote Dreams, “And if you help me prove it, I’ll split the royalties with you. Thank you very much.”
With his final comment, the Ayers-friendly audience laughed in relief. The media will laugh nervously upon seeing the video as well. The White House will not.
video at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/03/ayers_affirms_he_wrote_dreams.html
Take a deep breath and look at what the question and answer that are the topic of this thread are, and not what you are imagining the to be or what you might like them to be.
You may recall that Huckabee ran for the GOP nomination in ‘08, right? And he had to conform to a variety of requirements to get on the ballots in those states where he was a candidate, did he not?
Do you think that might qualify him to answer whether or not candidates have to produce documentation as to their birth to get on the ballot?
The simple fact is that nothing is done to assure that the Constitutional language of Art II, Sec.1, Clause 5 is adhered to before a candidate’s name is put on the ballot. It’s careless oversight resulting from generations of trust that no one would even think to run for POTUS if not eligible.
In addition, the mere production of a birth certificate does not, imo, establish one’s “natural born citizen[ship].”
There is nothing on anyone’s birth certificate as to his/her parents’ citizenship. How is a state registrar or secretary of state to determine eligibility?
The SCOTUS has turned down several entreaties to define language that was understood at the time of the framing of the Constitution of exactly what that phrase means.
Frankly, I don’t know from whence you derived your claims of my ‘pontificating’ or being a troll or ignorant. I fear I know a good deal more about this issue than most, especially those who post without even understanding the question raised or the answer given.
My my my. What a statement from the resident Obozo Troll, my little friend "jamese777". First time I ever remember you admitting that it requires 2 parents with United States (not just American) citizenship to father a "natural born" United States Citizen.
Now tell me what qualifies Barrack H. Obama, Jr. to be a "natural born" United States Citizen as the Constitution requires? (hint: it is not possible, if Barrack H. Obama, Sr. is his father)
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.