Here is the actual Executive Order that Obama issued immediately after he
took power. The Media spins this as rescinding a Bush Executive Order
13233. But in fact, it is a new Executive Order to specifically require his
approval before release of any information, obstensively because of
"Executive Privelege".
Now, Lomax, who is lying now. Do I get my apology now? What exactly have
you debunked? .... you blatant liar. I'm not surprised as the continued
presidency of a muslim would serve islam and muhammed, so it is OK to lie,
to deceive, by outright lying or guile. I'm not surprised.
Goodness my friend, you have been exposed as a liar on 3 occasions now.
(A'isha age during consumation with muhammed. The obligatory requirement of
FGM in Sharia,. and now this.) Don't you have some shame? Are you going to
continue your lies, because you lies would serve islam and muhammed?
Go Ahead, take you best spin shoot. Let's see what spin and lies you'll
come up next.
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 21, 2009
EXECUTIVE ORDER 13489 - - - - - - -
PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws
of the United States of America, and in order to establish policies and
procedures governing the assertion of executive privilege by incumbent and
former Presidents in connection with the release of Presidential records by
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) pursuant to the
Presidential Records Act of 1978, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section
1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) "Archivist" refers to the Archivist of the United States or his
designee. (b) "NARA" refers to the National Archives and Records
Administration.
(c) "Presidential Records Act" refers to the Presidential Records Act, 44
U.S.C. 2201-2207.
(d) "NARA regulations" refers to the NARA regulations implementing the
Presidential Records Act, 36 C.F.R. Part 1270.
(e) "Presidential records" refers to those documentary materials maintained
by NARA pursuant to the Presidential Records Act, including Vice
Presidential records.
(f) "Former President" refers to the former President during whose term or
terms of office particular Presidential records were created.
(g) A "substantial question of executive privilege" exists if NARA's
disclosure of Presidential records might impair national security (including
the conduct of foreign relations), law enforcement, or the deliberative
processes of the executive branch.
(h) A "final court order" is a court order from which no appeal may be
taken.
Sec. 2. Notice of Intent to Disclose Presidential Records. (a) When the
Archivist provides notice to the incumbent and former Presidents of his
intent to disclose Presidential records pursuant to section 1270.46 of the
NARA regulations, the Archivist, using any guidelines provided by the
incumbent and former Presidents, shall identify any specific materials, the
disclosure of which he believes may raise a substantial question of
executive privilege. However, nothing in this order is intended to affect
the right of the incumbent or former Presidents to invoke executive
privilege with respect to materials not identified by the Archivist. Copies
of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the
President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General
(through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel).
The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the
former President or his designated representative. (b) Upon the passage of
30 days after receipt by the incumbent and former Presidents of a notice of
intent to disclose Presidential records, the Archivist may disclose the
records covered by the notice, unless during that time period the Archivist
has received a claim of executive privilege by the incumbent or former
President or the Archivist has been instructed by the incumbent President or
his designee to extend the time period for a time certain and with reason
for the extension of time provided in the notice. If a shorter period of
time is required under the circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the
NARA regulations, the Archivist shall so indicate in the notice.
Sec. 3. Claim of Executive Privilege by Incumbent President. (a) Upon
receipt of a notice of intent to disclose Presidential records, the Attorney
General (directly or through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of Legal Counsel) and the Counsel to the President shall review as they deem
appropriate the records covered by the notice and consult with each other,
the Archivist, and such other executive agencies as they deem appropriate
concerning whether invocation of executive privilege is justified.
(b) The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise
of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under
subsection (a) of this section, may jointly determine that invocation of
executive privilege is not justified. The Archivist shall be notified
promptly of any such determination.
(c) If either the Attorney General or the Counsel to the President believes
that the circumstances justify invocation of executive privilege, the issue
shall be presented to the President by the Counsel to the President and the
Attorney General.
(d) If the President decides to invoke executive privilege, the Counsel to
the President shall notify the former President, the Archivist, and the
Attorney General in writing of the claim of privilege and the specific
Presidential records to which it relates. After receiving such notice, the
Archivist shall not disclose the privileged records unless directed to do so
by an incumbent President or by a final court order.
Sec. 4. Claim of Executive Privilege by Former President. (a) Upon receipt
of a claim of executive privilege by a living former President, the
Archivist shall consult with the Attorney General (through the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel), the Counsel to the
President, and such other executive agencies as the Archivist deems
appropriate concerning the Archivist's determination as to whether to honor
the former President's claim of privilege or instead to disclose the
Presidential records notwithstanding the claim of privilege. Any
determination under section 3 of this order that executive privilege shall
not be invoked by the incumbent President shall not prejudice the
Archivist's determination with respect to the former President's claim of
privilege.
(b) In making the determination referred to in subsection (a) of this
section, the Archivist shall abide by any instructions given him by the
incumbent President or his designee unless otherwise directed by a final
court order. The Archivist shall notify the incumbent and former Presidents
of his determination at least 30 days prior to disclosure of the
Presidential records, unless a shorter time period is required in the
circumstances set forth in section 1270.44 of the NARA regulations. Copies
of the notice for the incumbent President shall be delivered to the
President (through the Counsel to the President) and the Attorney General
(through the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel).
The copy of the notice for the former President shall be delivered to the
former President or his designated representative.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to
impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof;
or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budget, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and
subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not
intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United
States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person.
Sec. 6. Revocation. Executive Order 13233 of November 1, 2001, is revoked.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 21, 2009.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:[OT] Moon God, Dozens of wives, and marriageable age
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.
