Conclusion, there is no such Executive Order. It appears that Jojo
Jaro believes birther myths, long after they have been conclusively
and with evidence debunked. If he fails to apologize, or point to an
actual order doing what he claimed, he is, effectively, a liar.
I've said similar things about Naudin, because he made blatant errors
in his MAHG investigation, stonewalled friendly inquiries, and eft
the page with those major errors (that totally reverse his
conclusions) without corrections, thus continuing to mislead the
public. That's culpable. Until he fixes this, he's a *liar*.
If Naudin were a serious investigator, he'd do it in a flash. He made
a mistake. Embarrassing. So what? All it takes is "Oops!" and it is
almost entirely over.
And if Jojo were interested in truth, he'd do the same. From long
experience, now, I concluded he isn't interested in truth. He is
interested in *insult* and *winning.*
At 02:24 PM 12/26/2012, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
At 01:07 AM 12/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Funny thing is, the new governor of Hawaii Ambercrombie - a
democrat, strong supporter of Obama, wanted to silence the birther
movement once and for all. So, he sought to dig into Obama's vault
BC. Guess what? Even he can't penetrate the veil of corruption
Obama has put up to block access to his vault records. Why is
there an executive order to block access to Obama's vault BC.
Fascinating. Is there such an Executive Order? That would be quite
odd. Legally, the President has no authority over Hawaiian
officials, unless a federal issue could be shown. and this would not qualify.
Jojo went on to repeat the Executive Order claim that Obama is
preventing access to the vault certificate. Is that true? Is there an
"Executive Order to block access."
What can be found on this?
The basis for the claim might be covered here:
http://www.politifact.com/subjects/obama-birth-certificate/
Is Politifact results from checking claims. It's remarkable how many
claims are shown as flaming lies, and how many of the rest are shown
as false. There really are only a few related claims that they show
as true. This is not one of them:
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/feb/27/leo-berman/state-rep-leo-berman-says-hawaii-governor-cant-fin/
The claim: State Rep. Leo Berman says Hawaii governor can't find
anything that says Obama was born in Hawaii
They consider the claim by Berman to be false. What they found showed
that Berman apparently misinterpreted statements by Abercrombie. What
had actually happened?
... The Associated Press reported that Abercrombie's office had
ended its effort to make public more information about Obama's
birth. The story does not say that Abercrombie had failed to find
evidence of Obama's birthplace, but that the state's attorney
general had told the governor that he can't disclose birth
documentation without the person's consent. "There is nothing more
that Gov. Abercrombie can do within the law to produce a document,"
Abercrombie spokeswoman Donalyn Dela Cruz said.
We wondered whether Abercrombie sought Obama's permission to obtain
more proof of his birth. The White House wouldn't comment, but
Abercrombie told CNN on Dec. 27 that "we haven't had any of those discussions."
Per the authenticity of the document posted online by Obama, our
colleagues at PolitiFact National pointed out July 1, 2009, that
FactCheck.org, a respected fact-checking unit at the University of
Pennsylvania, had traveled to Chicago to examine the document and
concluded that it's legitimate.
Unfortunately, that would be a reference to the "short form"
certificate. This page was written before the long form was released.
Abercrombie had apparently not requested permission.. My speculation
about why he'd not look at the vault certificate himself, and
announce it, turns out to be confirmed as the reason. It's illegal
without consent!
Were there later developments on this? (Sure: Obama requested the
long form, and then released copies of it, both as direct copies,
given to the media, and on-line, as a readable, but compressed copy,
as would be a necessity.)
Was there an Executive Order? Jojo claims it. That's a specific kind
of document, and is not informal, and obviously is not binding on
anyone not informed of it (and may not be binding, period, but that's
another issue.) I was concerned about Jojo's claim of such an Order,
which is why I'm investigating.
The claim is common. There was an Obama Executive Order that is
commonly asserted to prevent release of his birth certificate. That's
a totally naive and imbalanced understanding of the Order.
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/other-stuff/ covers
it and links to the Order itself.
However, is there *another* Executive Order? To get the real poop (or
"genuine bullshit"), I'll need to go to birther sources, perhaps.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=246370 refers
to the same order, but also to
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/read/246335 which,
in turn, refers to a Sheriff Arpaio page on WND. Which showed bupkis
unless maybe I gave them my email address, don't know. Not about to
do that. Dead end.
I've been watching Arpaio for years, from long before this affair. Is
he claiming an Executive Order?
Here is the Arpaio press release:
http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/ksaz/pdfs/Birth%20Certificate%20Investigation%20Part%20II.pdf
It doesn't mention an Executive Order. It raises a concern about
Hawaiian law regarding alien birth certificates. As I've mentioned,
this is a common practice, I've registered two out-of-the-US births.
I don't think that these certificates mispepresent the actual birth.
They simply provide a way to obtain a local birth certificate if you
need one. We were advised to get them because we wouldn't want our
children to have to get a certificate from China or Ethiopia. Arpaio
doesn't seem to realize that this is common everywhere. Arpaio is
confusing "U.S. citizenship" with "Natural-born citizenship." They
are quite different issues. By U.S. law, our daughters became U.S.
Citizens the moment they entered the US on the visa they had. They
did not become "natural-born citizens." They would not be eligible to
be elected President. Damn shame, actually, but that's the
Constitution at present!
http://www.mcso.org/MultiMedia/PressRelease/Sheriffreleasesobamafindings.pdf
gives more details on Arpaio's "findings."
I don't know if anyone else is concerned about an Arizona sheriff
investigating people and events that took place outside his
jurisdiction and that don't relate to any alleged crimes in his
bailiwick. But this is Arpaio, he's not shy! He used his "Cold Case
Possee," which is non-governmental, and which does not operate with
public funds. The investigation was requested by the Tea Party.
Arpaio is, however, using the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office web
site and seal to issue his press releases. Not really my concern at
this point, I don't live in Arizona.
I found no mention of an Executive Order.
Here is an example of a birther claim about an Executive Order.
http://www.infowars.com/obama-signs-executive-order-barring-release-of-his-birth-certificate/
Basically, the guy doesn't understand what he's reading. It's the
same Executive Order, that has nothing to do with personal data
outside of the Presidential documents, and would have no effect on
access to them.
http://www.wnd.com%2F2012%2F11%2Fnow-white-house-petition-seeks-obamas-birth-certificate/
This is a birther page, from last month. The "reporter," repeats the
Executive Order myth. Yes, his first order sealed "his own records"
form public access, but that order was only about normal presidential
executive privilege, it has nothing to do with outside personal
records. In many comments, this reporter continues to propagate
myths, asking questions that have been answered (like the question
about Abercrombie) that were *long ago answered*, as if there is no
answer and the questions being unanswered demonstrates cause for suspicion.
My conclusion, I've researched this enough. Absent some specific
assertion, I'm not looking more. There is every sign that an
Executive Order myth developed out of the original Order that had
nothing to do with the issue, all references I could find pointed to
that (or weren't explicit.)
As to Sheriff Arpaio, *birthers* are complaining that he hasn't
released his information. The reporter above cites Arpaio, but not by
name, instead calling his work "law enforcement conclusions," which
is highly misleading. Arpaio's investigation was not "law
enforcement," it was not an official investigation, even though
Arpaio abused his position in how he announced it. It worked. It
misled the reporter, if he actually cares about fact, which isn't clear.
One more point of interest here. I hadn't seen any one address the
alleged problem with Hawaaian law, I had only my own knee-jerk opinion.
http://gen.doh.hawaii.gov/sites/har/AdmRules1/11-120.pdf Foreign
persons adopted in Hawaii.
Sec. 11-120-4 Issuance of certificate.
Upon submission of the application as provided herein, the registrar
shall prepare and file the Hawaii certificate of foreign
birth that shall contain the following information:
(1) Information about the adopted person:
(A) Full name as set forth in the adoption decree;
(B) Sex;
(C) Date of birth; and
(D) Place of birth.
(2) Information about the adoptive parents:
(A) Name of father and maiden name of mother;
(B) Date of birth of each parent;
(C) Place of birth of each parent; and
(D) Mailing address of parents.
(3) The statement "This certificate is not evidence of United States
citizenship for the child or the
parents named above." [Eff. FEB 19 1981] (Auth: HRS Secs. 321-9,
338-2) (Imp: HRS Secs.
338-17.7(c), 338-20.5)
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birth-certificates/birth-certificates-101/
covers the issue. There is no sign that Hawaiian law creates a
problem with identifying "foreign birth certificates."
http://www.thefogbow.com/special-reports/second-arpaio-press-conference/
covers the Arpaio investigation, with astonishing thoroughness.
